Friday, February 14, 2025

Post 53: The Climate Change Conundrum - Part 1

 I have an irrational fear of accidentally wandering into a pit of quicksand.  You know, a place where you get unexpectedly stuck and the more you struggle to free yourself the deeper you get sucked in until you die a horrible death – unless you are lucky enough to grab a jungle vine and pull yourself to safety.  The rational side of my mind tells me that:  1) I’m unlikely to come within miles of an actual quicksand location, let alone wander in accidentally; and 2) that quicksand sucking you in until you die is a ridiculous trope used only in B-grade jungle movies.  


I’m telling you this because I’m writing this post (and probably one or two more) on the topic of climate change which, in my opinion, is the public policy equivalent of jungle movie quicksand.  I have avoided this topic over my past 52 posts partly because of my irrational fear, but mainly because most cities have successfully been able to tip-toe around the topic.  I think that is going to be increasingly difficult in the future, so I’m going to jump into the topic with both feet and hope there is a handy vine that I can use to extract myself.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is real and see it as a threat that needs to be addressed.  However, only 37 percent believe it should be a top priority for the government.  Overall, climate change ranks 17th out of 21 national issues in terms of importance. [1]  Hence the conundrum for local government:  what exactly should be done?  Should local governments move aggressively toward a net-zero carbon footprint, take only token actions, or something in between?  I’m going to focus on the middle ground which is where I think most communities will end up, but I will touch on some paradigm-shifting issues before I am done.

The Quicksand Nature of Climate Change

Most of you probably still think I’m being irrational by trying to avoid the climate change discussion.  But this is a topic where the degree to which local governments can “move the needle” is unclear, the cost of effective action is unknown, and the odds that you will irritate more people than you please is high.  Precisely the set of characteristics that politicians try to avoid.  Here are the reasons this is so:

Fanatics on both sides.  Climate change is a discussion that tends to be dominated by the extremes.  There are those who see the issue in apocalyptic terms and who demand extreme action that is often politically and financially unworkable.  The Just Stop Oil movement, for example, wants to end the extraction and burning of fossil fuel by 2030. [2]  No mention is made of how the world economy is going to continue to function.  This may be the lunatic fringe, but there are people in most communities who are sympathetic to that point of view.

On the other side are climate science deniers who think in terms of world conspiracy.  They see climate change as an attempt to use “fictional” science to enslave society, end capitalism and take away their gas-powered SUV.  This typically takes the form of rejecting any data that indicates the climate is warming, or claiming that any warming trend is just part of a natural cycle rather than something influenced by human actions.  The mountain of scientific data to the contrary is just proof that experts can’t be trusted because they will manufacture data to support whatever story will give them the power to control our lives.

Although climate science deniers make up less than a third of the population, they have gained political power because of the recent election of President Trump who downplays climate change at every opportunity.  I suspect that deep down he believes that climate change is a real issue, but he has found it to be politically expedient to take the opposite point of view.  The foundation of the MAGA movement, after all, is the rejection of societal change that is being forced down the throats of the common man by the leftist elites.  Climate change fits neatly into that scenario.

 

Climate science is both settled and unsettled.  People have been tracking the weather for a long time.  There are global records of temperature, for example, going back over a hundred and fifty years.  There are decades of data on ocean currents, atmospheric jet streams, greenhouse gas concentrations, and numerous other climate indicators.  High-tech satellites now measure ocean levels, glacier extents, and surface reflectivity to the nth degree on essentially a continuous basis.  Thus, the level of certainty regarding climate trends over the relatively recent past is quite high.

Unfortunately, climate change questions can span not just decades or centuries, but thousands and thousands of years.  To go back in time, scientists use “proxy records” such as ice cores, tree rings, coral reefs, ocean sediments, and fossil records.  These data provide strong clues to past climatic conditions but are obviously less precise and less thorough in their geographic extent than the direct measurements of today.  

In addition, the most contentious climate questions often involve the future which can only be answered through climate modeling.  The factors which influence climate are numerous and the way factors interact is complex.  No model can guarantee that all of the factors and interactions are correctly interpreted.  Backward testing on historic data is obviously helpful, but that doesn’t necessarily account for future events which might alter weather trends, feedback loops that might accelerate change, or tipping points which might change the behavior of a particular factor when it passes a key threshold.  Advances in computing power and artificial intelligence allow climate models to be continuously refined, but ultimately there is no way to precisely measure the accuracy of a climate projection decades into the future.

Confusion between weather and climate.  Weather is the near-term atmospheric condition at a localized geographic scale, while climate refers to average weather patterns over a long period of time (typically decades or more) and over a large geographic area.  These are two related and yet very distinct things that are frequently confused – often leading to observations that a local heatwave is proof of climate change or that a cold snap proves that global warming is a hoax.  Weather conditions are the result of a variety of factors interacting in complex ways.  Long term climate trends are one of those factors, but not necessarily the predominant one.

Blaming climate change for every natural disaster.  Hurricanes, torrential rains and wildfires existed long before global warming became a concern and yet virtually every such event is seemingly linked by the media to global warming as a primary cause.  It might be plausible to say that global warming increases the likelihood of such events or increases the severity of such events, but blaming climate change for each natural disaster is so far-fetched that it actually undermines climate science and legitimate concerns about weather volatility.  Exaggeration leads to greater polarization of opinions, not consensus on how to move forward.

Linking climate change to other political positions.  Perhaps because climate activists have called for massive federal spending programs and invasive government mandates, climate change has been equated with other liberal causes that also call for federal spending and regulations.  In recent elections, conservatives have felt compelled to downplay climate concerns and liberals have taken the opposite point of view.  This makes a rational discussion on climate change almost impossible because it is immediately laden with baggage from immigration, health care, foreign aid and a dozen other issues.

No wonder local politicians tend to tip-toe around climate change as if it were an unexploded bomb, and yet the issue has clear public safety ramifications for many cities and many citizens see climate change as a stewardship issue for future generations.  My goal with this post is to lay out an approach to climate change action at the local level that is as pragmatic and non-confrontational as possible.

In this post I will focus on incremental steps that can reduce the carbon footprint of local government operations, but it is impossible to have a discussion of climate change action without the flooding in Asheville, North Carolina, the wildfires in Los Angeles, or some other natural disaster being raised as a major concern.  Although I cautioned against blaming climate change for a specific event, it is highly likely that climate change is making extreme weather more common and more severe, and that climate change is setting the stage for related disasters such as wildfires or water shortages.  I will tackle those issues in the second part of this series.  For this initial post, I will focus on broader strategic issues that might shape a municipality’s approach to a climate change program.  

Read the Room

Before any strategic plan is put into place, cities need to know how to align that plan with the general perception of the issue in their community.  Opinions, of course, are likely to be all over the place but cities need to have a general sense of how important this issue is to the local citizenry.  Absent that general understanding, any initiative is likely to be hijacked by climate activists or scuttled by climate skeptics.

Most cities with a population over 100,000 should have a regular program of community surveys that could be used to gauge how high a priority climate action should be.  These surveys are typically used to measure citizen satisfaction with government services and they are designed to be a statistically valid representation of the population.  The question list should include a ranking of the importance of climate action compared with other city programs.  Ideally, climate priority questions should be included in several consecutive surveys so that trends, if any, can be determined.  If done properly, the answers from community surveys can provide guidance for a reasonable plan of action and political cover if the issue becomes a hot potato.

Don’t Get Bogged Down in the Data

Local governments are not staffed with climate science experts (and shouldn’t be).  As a result, it is probably best to keep things simple.  In fact, it might be best to avoid the term “climate change” entirely and use something more generalized like “environmental sustainability.”  That may sound cowardly, but discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to politically sensitive topics.  If the topic is unavoidable, stick to the basics that are likely to be generally accepted:
1.  2024 was the hottest year globally on record (over the  past 150 years) and the top 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the past 10 years. [3]
2.  A warming planet can have negative consequences for the health, safety and welfare of our citizens.
 3.  It is simply prudent for the community to think about how best to adapt to a warming world and to take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood that we are making the problem substantially worse.
Getting into the nitty-gritty of climate change won’t make anything in your plan more effective or make the governing body’s decisions any easier.

Source: NOAA Climate.gov







For people who insist on details, refer them to one of the dozens of climate websites run by respected scientific institutions.  The fact of the matter is that no municipal climate action plan is going to save the world from climate change.  Arguing about the precise impact that fossil fuels have on greenhouse gas levels, or the merits of this climate projection versus that climate projection are simply distractions that won’t help the community reach a consensus.

Focus on Low-Hanging Fruit

This probably sounds so obvious as to be worthless, but do the simple things first.  These types of actions are going to fall into two general categories:  things that reduce the amount of energy the organization consumes, and things that exchange fossil fuel energy sources for sources that (at least in theory) have minimal or no impact on greenhouse gases.  A simple example would be switching to LED streetlights.  Modern LED fixtures use less than half the electricity of high-pressure sodium fixtures and have a longer life span to boot.  It costs money to make the switch, of course, but the typical payback period is two to three years.

A more aggressive community might want to put solar panels on the roof on community buildings and replace backup power generators with battery storage.  Many municipal buildings have large, flat roofs that are ideal for solar panel installation and the typical payback period is five to ten years.  For buildings that need backup power capability or where existing generators need to be replaced, a battery storage system can provide emergency power during outages as well as increase the savings from rooftop solar panels.

Focusing on the payback period is helpful because it speaks to economic stewardship as well as environmental stewardship.  Who is going to object to actions that save money and help the environment?  It is a little misleading, however, because local governments do not make a profit in the way that private businesses do.  The key economic measure for cities is balancing annual revenues and expenditures.  If cities have to borrow money to implement climate actions then the whole economic rationale gets shakier.  Ideally, climate actions should stay consistent with the resource limits and the broader needs of the organization.  For example, adding solar panels to the roof might be best accomplished when the roof needs to be replaced anyway, and should be paired, if possible, with incentives from the local electric utility or federal grant programs.

Beware of the Limits of Change

As I have pointed out in several previous posts, one of the biggest challenges that our society faces is the ability to adapt to the constantly escalating pace of change.  While most people accept some change as being inevitable, having change pushed on you when you don’t agree with or understand the underlying rationale is particularly difficult to accept.  That is the situation that most cities face with the most aggressive climate change actions.

The limits of climate change has two dimensions.  The first is the limitation on implementing change within your particular local government organization.  You don’t want to implement change faster than your organization can handle it because it will be cost inefficient, less effective than intended, and will harm employee morale.  Programs that look great on paper but which are too ambitious for effective implementation are bound to either fail or at least underperform.  Start with a pilot project to (1) prove that the change will not undercut the city’s mission, (2) identify any support programs needed for long term maintenance, and (3) allow city staff to get some hands-on experience without mandating that they change the way they do their work.  If the pilot project is successful, then full rollout will be easier.  If problems appear, then you can either make adjustments or cancel the program with minimal cost.

The second dimension is the capacity for change within the broader community.  Hopefully, the survey questions from the Read the Room section will help gauge that capacity.  The general rule to keep in mind, however, is that the more that a city initiative requires behavioral change the less popular it will be.  People might question the wisdom of spending tax dollars on rooftop solar panels, but they are unlikely to get too irate because it won’t impact their daily lives.  But ban propane grills on backyard patios and tempers are likely to flare.  New York City is currently implementing a ban on natural gas furnaces, water heaters, and appliances in new buildings less than 7 stories in height.  There are reasons behind this program and New York is a pretty liberal place that generally supports climate change action, but this is likely to be viewed as overly invasive by a significant number of people.

Don’t Over-Promise or Over-Reach

Climate activists who see the issue in apocalyptic terms are likely to push for municipal programs that are heroic in scale or technical ambition. In justifying these programs, proponents will often underestimate the costs, or estimate benefits that would only happen in a perfect world. Examples might be an extensive carbon sequestration program or a requirement that all new public buildings receive Platinum LEED certification.  While they might provide a short-term public relations opportunity, the potential for cost overruns and long-term maintenance headaches is enormous.

Most cities, in my opinion, should just say “no” or at least should dramatically simplify the proposal and value-engineer whatever remains to be as cost effective as possible.  An extensive tree planting program, for example, is a low-tech way to remove carbon from the atmosphere that is relatively low cost and readily integrated into the city budget.  Most cities already have the staff expertise to implement such a program and to provide the minimal maintenance required to keep the trees healthy.  It won’t be as sexy as a technology based solution that extracts carbon from the air and injects it into underground aquifers or geologic formations, but it is also less likely to fail.

Similarly, it is fairly easy to build buildings that are energy efficient, have low water usage requirements, and have low life-cycle maintenance costs.  Doing so makes a great deal of economic sense, but the LEED certification process is expensive and time-consuming, and provides little long-term benefit beyond the PR value.  Proponents will argue that certification demonstrates environmental leadership, but that is a tough sell when many worthwhile projects are competing for limited tax dollars.

The Bottom Line

Climate activists may call me a coward for my conservative approach on this issue, but given the current political environment I think it is the prudent course of action.  Racking up some simple wins that have both climate and economic benefits isn’t likely to get a staff member fired or a council member voted out of office.

The trickier issue is dealing with the life safety and property security concerns that can accompany climate change scenarios.  Torrential flooding, wildfires and infrastructure failure are all reasonably foreseeable outcomes from a warming planet.  Tune in next month as I wade even deeper into the quicksand.




Notes:


1. Alec Tyson, Cary Funk and Brian Kennedy; “What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change;” August 2023; Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/


2. “The Spark: Just Stop Oil Strategy 2025”; https://juststopoil.org/our-strategy/


3. “2024 Was the Warmest Year on Record”; NASA Earth Observatory; https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153806/2024-was-the-warmest-year-on-record




Monday, January 13, 2025

Post 52: A Plethora of Parking

 I’m sure we have all experienced a desperate search for a parking space that seems nonexistent, particularly when we are pressed for time.  Perhaps it is in front of your favorite coffee shop on your way to work, or at the doctor’s office when your child has a mystery fever and won’t stop crying, or maybe at a popular restaurant when you are running late for a dinner reservation.  Those frustrating experiences tend to stick in our minds which is why very few people tend to complain about there being too much parking.

That is starting to change in professional city planning circles, although it is a long way from being a hot topic at cocktail parties.  Our bad memories of those occasional parking shortages tend to blind us to the day-in, day-out reality where most parking lots we visit are at least a third empty, and many are far more underutilized than that.  No one really knows how many parking spaces there are in the U.S. but estimates range from four to eight spaces for each and every car.  That means that for every parking space which always seems to be full, there are several spaces which are almost always empty.


Half Full Suburban Office Parking Lot
This may not seem like an actual problem.  After all, there are certainly places in every city where there legitimately are too few parking spaces, but in most cities those locations are the exception not the rule.  Furthermore, who really cares if a shopping center or office park has too many parking spaces?  Yes, this problem pales in comparison to war in the Middle East or homelessness in our cities, but it is costing you money and reducing the quality of life in most metro areas.  Don’t believe me?  Read on and see if I can convince you otherwise.


The Hidden Hand of Government

Most people assume that the size of the parking lot at your neighborhood shopping center was determined by the developer who built the center, perhaps with some input from the businesses that are located there.  The developer does have some say in the matter, but the primary force in determining parking lot size is the local government through its zoning regulations.  Just about every city in the country has a section in their zoning ordinance that specifies the minimum number of parking spaces that are required as part of the development process, generally based on the zoning district, the land use being proposed, and the amount of floor area being built.  The developer might build more than is required or might appeal the requirement in hopes of getting a slight reduction, but most parking lots are within a few spaces of the number required by the zoning ordinance.


Minimum parking requirements started out – as most requirements do – as a solution to a vexing problem.  Going back to horse and buggy days, cities have struggled with a transportation space problem.  Particularly as buildings got larger, finding space for people to park their horse, buggy, or (eventually) car was difficult.  Initially, people simply parked in the street in front of the building they were visiting.  But as motor vehicles became more popular and buildings became taller and closer together, that approach no longer worked.  Citizens demanded a solution and that solution became the mandatory parking lot for each new building.


This is particularly true in midwestern cities and in suburban areas pretty much anywhere.  In those locations, parking is seen as an essential element of any new development because the car is the predominant mode of transportation to the exclusion of just about anything else.  If private development didn’t provide parking, then the convenience of car travel would plummet and we would all be whining to our city council members.  Hence, the minimum parking requirements that are nearly universal throughout the midwest.  The problem is that the minimum requirements, which were wildly approximate to begin with, are now badly out of date.  So cities end up requiring developers to build parking lots that are unlikely to be anywhere near the correct size.


There are a variety of reasons for our current predicament, but four are particularly relevant in my opinion.  To begin with, nearly all parking requirements can be traced back to a thick book called the Parking Generation Manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers.  This manual has parking demand estimates for a wide variety of land uses based on field surveys done in a variety of cities.  All of this detail is useful information but it tends to get simplified for ease of administration.  Plus, it is all based on averages from small sample sizes that are assumed to be relevant for a wide variety of cities and an even wider variety of business characteristics.  The surveys often yield parking rates that vary widely, but that variation is masked by utilizing the average.  The end result is that a 50,000 square foot Kroger’s, a 20,000 square foot Trader Joe’s, and a 7,500 square foot Asian specialty market may all be subjected to the same parking ratio despite notable differences in the number and timing of the trips that each will attract.


Second, the parking surveys that form the basis for the Parking Generation Manual’s recommendations are based on observations of businesses in largely suburban locations that offer their customers free parking.  If you have something of value (i.e. a parking space) and you give it away for free, then you can’t expect a survey of usage to give you an accurate measure of demand.  This is Economics 101.  If I want to open a business selling hamburgers for $4 each, but I estimate my potential market by counting the number of people who show up when I give my hamburgers away for free, I haven’t really gained much useful information.  The same is true for parking studies, but it gets even worse if I only survey suburban locations with little or no transit service.  Applying these rates to denser locations or to mixed use developments where transit, walking or biking are viable options is just silly but it happens all the time because this is the best information available and planners use it without enough critical thinking.


Third, most parking requirements were originally developed decades ago which means they aren’t based on the most recent edition of the Parking Generation Manual but one that is probably fifty or sixty years old.  Zoning ordinances get updated from time to time but many parking requirements have simply been copied from prior versions.  In fact, many cities don’t even consult the ITE Manual directly, they just copy the requirements from the zoning ordinances in places that they consider to be their “peer” cities.  Laziness leads to errors being replicated from city to city.


Fourth, cities have to simplify the application of parking ratios to actual development requests because no one really knows exactly what businesses are going to end up in a development when the initial plans are approved.  Is the anchor tenant going to be a supermarket or a furniture store?  Is the strip center space going to house an insurance agent or a bar and grill?  Is the office building going to be filled with lawyers who have large offices and conference rooms or a call center filled with 6-foot by 8-foot cubicles?  It is rare to know the initial tenants when design decisions are being made and certainly no one knows who the tenants will be 10 years into the future.  


So educated guesses are made and the standards that seem so precise on the surface:


For example, 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet times 5,480 square feet equals 18.63 spaces (rounded up to 19)


are actually averages on top of assumptions on top of simplifications, and the result is almost always designed to err on the side of too many spaces rather than too few.


The Times They Are A Changin’


The issues discussed above are bad enough by themselves, but to top it off the past five or ten years have seen societal changes that make traditional parking ratios even more obsolete.  For example, e-commerce has reduced the number of retail shopping trips that most people make, and consequently reduced the demand for parking spaces in most retail locations.  Not all retailers are affected to the same degree, however, so the change cannot be represented as a universal adjustment factor.  Coffee shops and hair salons, for example, are pretty much unaffected by e-commerce trends, while stores that sell clothing or office supplies have seen a significant drop in in-person visits.


Half Full Target Parking Lot (the week before Christmas)
The pandemic accelerated the work-from-home trend substantially and even though the pandemic is largely behind us, remote work is still popular with many employees.  Consequently, many office businesses reduced their floor area needs and their parking space demand over the last few years.  Despite a growing economy focused mainly on white collar work, office building vacancy rates remain stubbornly high, averaging roughly 20 percent in most major metropolitan areas. [1]  Return-to-the-office mandates have garnered some headlines in the press in recent months, but the reality is that relatively few employers have gotten 100 percent of their white-collar employees back in the office 100 percent of the time.  Hybrid work schedules are common (and very popular) which means that a typical employee does not need a parking space Monday through Friday, 8 AM through 5 PM.  


Rideshare companies such as Uber, Lyft – and increasingly robotaxi companies such as Waymo – are providing door-to-door transportation similar to driving a car but without the need for a parking space at either end.  This is particularly significant for nightlife businesses such as concert venues, restaurants and bars where parking is often a hassle and where people are reluctant to drink and drive.


The bottom line is that parking requirements which were sketchy to begin with are now sketchy and out of step with reality.  No wonder parking lots increasingly look like urban wastelands.  Parking is still needed because most of us still drive, but the frequency, timing and destination of our trips has changed and parking lots have not made the transition.  As I mentioned earlier, this has become at least a moderately hot topic among urbanists across the country.  Go on Instagram, Facebook, X or similar social media sites and search for #BlackFridayParking to see pictures of mostly empty parking lots taken on what is presumably the busiest shopping day of the year.  The system is broken and people are starting to take notice.


Why It Matters


The concept of a separate parking lot for each store, office building, church, hospital, factory or apartment building has become so ingrained in our way of life that we don’t give much thought to whether there is a better way.  Before we start building a better mousetrap, however, it might be instructive to analyze the problems with our current situation.  Entire books have been written on the problems associated with our current approach to parking requirements, but here are my top four issues:


Parking lots are expensive to build.  The cost to build a surface parking lot can range from $2,000 to $10,000 per space depending largely on the cost of the underlying land and the amount of site work that needs to be done.  The cost of a parking garage is typically $20,000 to $35,000 per space, but can be much more in some circumstances.  Since the majority of parking spaces in midwestern cities are “free” and are empty for much of the day, this turns out to be a significant – and relatively unproductive – expense for most businesses.  The developer, of course, passes the cost along to the owner, who passes the cost to the tenants, who pass the cost to you and me in every product or service that we buy.  The amount might not be significant for any given transaction, but it adds up over time.


Parking lots take up an inordinate amount of land.  In newer, suburban developments, parking lots are often huge – typically taking up more land area than the buildings that they serve.  In fact, parking lots for office buildings are often several times larger than the building footprint.  To the degree that parking requirements are too high, it means that everything is more spread out than it needs to be.  Many people drive from one store to the next within the same shopping center rather than make the unpleasant trek across a massive parking lot.


Even in relatively dense downtown areas, parking takes up a lot of land.  In my hometown of Kansas City, Missouri, an estimated 29 percent of developable land in the downtown core is used entirely or predominantly for parking. [2]  This number does not include parking garages that are underneath buildings.  This is some of the most valuable land in Kansas City, which means that there is untapped potential for economic growth.  If parking ratios are too high by even 25 or 30 percent, then that equates to roughly 20 to 30 acres of development that could take place which would not only bolster the local economy but produce a significant bump in property tax revenue – potentially millions of dollars worth.  The amount of land dedicated to parking in downtown Kansas City is typical for most midwestern cities.  Only very large cities such as Chicago, New York or Boston dip below 10 percent.


High parking ratios make us more dependent on cars.  In previous posts, I have argued that cities would function better, and we would be healthier and more connected to our community if there were several viable transportation options at our disposal for the routine trips we take each day.  Oversupplying parking makes every transportation option – except for driving a car – less desirable.  This happens because too much parking means that everything is more spread out, and greater distances between the places we want to visit make walking, biking or transit harder.  It actually makes driving slightly less desirable as well, but stepping on the gas for an extra minute is much easier than having to walk another five or ten.  In addition, seeing parking lots everywhere we go sends the subliminal message that driving is the “normal” mode of transportation and everything else is somehow “abnormal.”


Parking lots are ugly.  No one says “Hey, I saw a really cool parking lot the other day.  Let’s go hang out there.”  When you read articles on fun places to visit, do the pictures ever show parking lots?  No, they show cute shops, sidewalk restaurants, and walkable areas filled with people.  Parking lots are not an urban feature, they are a necessary evil.  We need them for our cities to function but they are a destroyer of any “sense of place” so we certainly don’t want any more parking than we really need.  City planner Jeff Speck once wrote “. . . city engineers – worshiping the twin gods of Smooth Traffic and Ample Parking – have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at . . .”


How to Fix the Problem


You have probably guessed that one of my recommendations here is going to be “require less parking.”  In fact, dozens of cities all across the country have done just that, and some have gone so far as to eliminate parking requirements entirely.  I think, however, that simply reducing parking requirements across the board is only a partial solution, and one which might actually backfire in some situations.  But it is a reasonable place to start and I think that many cities could reduce their requirements by 30 to 50 percent without causing major problems.


Furthermore, while reducing parking requirements is probably a good idea, I think eliminating parking requirements is a mistake. Yes, the private sector will generally supply parking in appropriate amounts simply because that will make it easier to get long-term financing and to lease their building in a reasonable amount of time.  That will not be universally true, however, and the exceptions will be annoying enough that there will eventually be a push to reinstate parking minimums.  Plus, eliminating parking requirements means that cities lose an important lever in getting what is really needed – parking reform.


The crux of the problem is not just the number of spaces but the common assumption that each building should have its own parking lot for the exclusive use of its tenants and customers, and that this parking should be provided for free.  This is obviously not the case for every property, but it is the default assumption for most city officials and most parking regulations.  And while it may seem like a reasonable assumption on the surface, it is in fact the underlying cause for parking dysfunction and needs to be discarded.


The second common assumption that needs to be abandoned is that parking requirements need to be uniform across the city for property of the same development type (e.g. retail, office, industrial, etc.) or in the same zoning district.  The reality is that different parts of town may have similar land uses but different parking needs.  My recommendation is that cities should adopt parking standards that specify a base requirement, but then allow that requirement to be modified using parking overlay districts for particular areas of town that have unique characteristics.  A commercial center in a midtown location with good transit service, for example, doesn’t need as many parking spaces as a similar commercial center in a peripheral location that has no transit service.


Aside from transit service, what characteristics should cities incentivize through this parking overlay approach?  Here are the factors that I think are most important:


Shared parking lots.  Nearly every business would prefer to have several dozen parking spaces reserved exclusively for their own customers and located directly in front of their door.  Traditional parking requirements actually encourage this type of thinking despite the fact that it results in a hugely inefficient parking layout when viewed at a community scale.  Multiple businesses and organizations sharing common parking facilities is far more cost effective and less confusing for the general public.  Shopping center developers figured this out years ago, but the principles of shared parking can be applied to many different development types.  Neighborhoods or developments willing to share parking should be allowed to reduce the number of spaces that they need to provide as a reward for doing the right thing.


Mixed uses.  Traditional parking standards require that a particular property contain “x” number of spaces all day long, seven days per week despite the fact that the actual parking demand is likely to fluctuate throughout the day and from one day to the next.  An apartment complex, for example, has relatively low parking demand during the day (residents are mostly out doing things) but high demand at night (residents are mostly at home).  An office building is almost the exact opposite – demand is high during the day and the parking lot is nearly empty after 5 or 6 PM.  Restaurants have two peaks (noon and early evening) but relatively low demand at other times.  Churches have a huge peak on Sunday mornings, but low demand on most other days. 


A mixed use district within a city can take advantage of these differing demand profiles by sharing parking so that spaces are utilized a greater percentage of the time while still providing adequate parking for all uses.  It is rare for a district to get the ideal mix of uses which yields the most efficient parking demand pattern, but even a sub-optimal mix can still justify a parking reduction of 20 to 40 percent.


Fees in lieu of spaces.  In areas where the city has the ability to provide public parking facilities, businesses should be given the option to pay the city a fee instead of providing a physical parking space on their property.  This “in lieu of” fee can then be used by the city to expand public parking options in the area.  Businesses benefit because the fee is often less than the cost of building a parking lot and cities benefit because they get a neighborhood with a more efficient parking layout that generally leads to greater tax revenue per acre of land.  The problem is that this approach only works if the city can actually deliver the necessary number of spaces as new development causes an increase in parking demand.

Dynamic parking pricing.  Basic economic theory tells us that providing a valuable commodity for free will result in people using that commodity inefficiently – in other words, using more of the commodity than they really need.  This basic principle is as true for parking as it is for anything else and yet parking is frequently provided at no direct cost to the consumer.  Worse still, when a charge is made for parking it is almost always done badly which makes cities reluctant to implement paid parking even when they know they should.  The classic example of this theory is a traditional downtown district where there is on-street parking on the main business streets and off-street parking lots in peripheral locations a block or two away.  The business owners all agree to have their employees park in the off-street lots so that the more convenient on-street spaces are available for their customers.  Parking survey after parking survey reveals, however, that the on-street spaces are impossible for customers to find because they are heavily used by not only employees but the business owners themselves.  This inevitably leads to complaints that there is not enough parking when in fact there is plenty of parking just a short distance away.


To make matters worse, some cities respond to this “parking shortage” by building a central parking garage with hundreds of spaces.  Since the parking garage is expensive to build, a fee is charged for parking in the garage but not for parking on the street.  The result, of course, is that hardly anyone ever parks in the parking garage, but people will circle the block endlessly looking for one of the free on-street spaces.  If there were even a minimal cost for the on-street parking, the employees would park elsewhere and the customers would be able to find convenient parking and the “parking shortage” would disappear.  If any parking should be free, it should be the peripheral spaces or even the ones in the parking garage in order to encourage people to use them despite being less convenient.


Many people resist the idea of charging for parking because they think the cost and inconvenience will drive customers away.  That may have been true in the past when you had to have the exact change for parking meters or had to return to your car to plug more money into the meter in order to stay for more time, but times have changed.  New payment, tracking and notification technology on our phones and in public spaces has made paying for parking almost frictionless, similar to the way highway toll booths have largely disappeared because electronic toll collection has gotten so effective.  Plus, the technology can implement dynamic pricing so that the cost is low (or free) when demand is low and is high when demand peaks.  The goal of dynamic pricing is not to maximize revenue but to ensure that there are always 10 to 15 percent of the parking spaces available for use.


The bottom line is that we have allowed parking to be the tail that wags the urban design dog.  It is far too prevalent and far too visible in just about every corner of every midwestern city.  Yes, there are places where there is too little parking, but that is the exception not the rule.  The result costs us money, degrades the aesthetics of our communities, and warps the design fabric of our neighborhoods.  


We can do better but it will not be a one-size-fits-all type of solution.  Cities need to do individualized studies and hold community discussions to craft parking regulations that really make sense for their particular needs.  There are a variety of cities that have done excellent work in this regard and their efforts can be a template for other cities wishing to move forward with parking reform.  The example that I am most familiar with was implemented recently by the City of Overland Park, Kansas with the help of Stantec consulting (see Note 3 below), but there are numerous other examples.  In the on-going struggle to improve the functionality and financial stability of our cities, parking reform is a small but crucial element.







Notes:


1. “A new working order:  Reimagining offices in a hybrid world”; Moody’s; September, 2024; https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/about/insights/data-stories/us-commercial-real-estate-vacancies-downtown-vs-suburbs.html


2. “Parking Lot Map”; Parking Reform Network; https://parkingreform.org/resources/parking-lot-map/


3. “Overland Park Parking Standards Update & Community Parking Strategy;” Stantec and the Overland Park Planning & Development Services Department; September 2021; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eCQ65p3zDQ8c6etUnq8EQSqM7bXxZAEK/view