It’s “conventional wisdom” that parking drives business. But what if it’s not true? What if, yes, ample parking enables greater automobile access and convenience, but it also makes downtowns, neighborhoods and many other destinations worse places? Places we aren’t inclined to walk, run or drive to?
Has our approach to parking been driving people away? A robust body of research looks into the effects of auto-oriented development. The results indicate that our status quo of prioritizing the flow and accessibility of automobiles above everything else undermines the economic vitality and social vibrancy of our communities. For example, parking lots reduce green space and increase sprawl, make it harder for businesses to grow and cost a significant amount of money, often at taxpayers’ expense.
Although evaluating these outcomes is challenging, researchers routinely use “natural experiments” to examine these questions. Consider Christopher McCahill and Norman Garrick’s 2011 publication “Automobile Use and Activity Level in Small Cities” comparing American cities that were similar in the 1950s but diverged in automobile prioritization in subsequent decades. They found that cities with more automobile use have less activity. There is simply less happening in the cities that prioritized the automobile the most. The overall community becomes diluted because large amounts of land are required to move and park vehicles. The authors also noted that the residents of cities with lower automobile use have achieved greater household income gains relative to the cities with high automobile use. It seems the less a city prioritized the flow and parking of cars, the wealthier its inhabitants became.
Why? As Donald Shoup argues in “The High Cost of Free Parking,” “you don’t go somewhere to park your car; you go there because you want to be there, and large parking lots in an area reduce the desire to be there.” What abundant parking provides is less of a “there” worth going to. Nobody wants to hang out in a parking lot. Parking infrastructure consumes vast amounts of space, often occupying more surface area than the buildings it is meant to serve. The result is fewer places to live, work, shop or simply enjoy. We have to reckon with the fact that when we ask for more parking, we’re asking for less of everything else.
Folks worry about accessibility, particularly for the aging, families with young children and those with disabilities. However, reducing the supply of parking doesn’t mean eliminating all parking. Most importantly, research into improving accessibility for these groups does not show that overall parking availability is what limits access. If anything, our auto-dependency is the greatest roadblock to accessibility. Organizations like AARP award grants to create streets that prioritize people on foot, with strollers or using micro-mobility devices as highly as they do vehicles — even if it requires removing vehicle lanes or parking spaces. Simply put, these groups benefit from community spaces that can not only be reached without a vehicle, but also feel comfortable, safe and navigable when you get out of your vehicle.
Asphalt is seldom inviting, particularly in the acreage requisite to provide ample parking. Applied to our streets, blocks and neighborhoods, its greatest capability is encouraging people to pass through rather than linger, dwell, socialize, spend money or do anything else that makes for great places. If we begin with what’s best for people, we might find that there isn’t much left over for parking. Maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.
Michael Mullin is a resident of Greenfield who serves on the city’s Parking and Traffic Commission.