Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

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

2559723208_231dc14e64.jpg(Photo: 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 their 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 pedesestrian-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  Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

The Overhead Wire asks why the U.S. 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 USA

Tuesday’s Headlines Pay Through the Nose

Why does a bus cost Cincinnati $937,000, while Singapore spends $333,000? David Zipper has the answer.

September 30, 2025

More Transit Means Safer Streets

Promoting transit isn't just a social good. It's also a tool to achieve Vision Zero.

September 30, 2025

Newsom Names GM CEO Mary Barra as Villain in Fight with Feds over Air Quality

Car company executives make good rhetorical foils. But they can't be held responsible for the state's shortcomings.

September 29, 2025

Monday’s Headlines Go on Offense

The "defensive driving" they teach in driver's ed has now turned into "defensive walking," and one car website has had it with victim-blaming.

September 29, 2025

States Have More Power Than They Think to Fund Sustainable Transportation

As the Trump administration claws back money for sustainable modes, states have a big opportunity to fill the gap.

September 29, 2025

Advocates: Congress Must Stop Trump From Illegally Holding Back Sustainable Transportation Funds

Congress has a chance to restore order, seize back their power of the purse, and stop Trump from "pocket-rescinding" hundreds of millions for good transportation projects.

September 26, 2025
See all posts