Re: [carfree_cities] Re: A new neighborhood in Cambridge; carfree?
>... What we could also use is references toWould these help?
>studies that document the high cost of the car in dense urban
>environments, whether to residents or city government.
Pavement Buster's Guide
The Pavement Buster's Guide is for planners, developers and community
activists interested in reducing the amount of land devoted to parking and
roadways. It describes how zoning laws tend to oversupply parking and
roadway capacity, discusses the full costs of this additional pavement, and
describes specific strategies that businesses and communities can use to
reduce parking and traffic demand.
The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements
Minimum parking requirements are usually based on peak parking demand under
suburban conditions, which results in generous and often arbitrary
standards. These requirements increase the supply, reduce the price, and
increase the total cost of parking. Free urban parking is one of the
largest external costs of automobile use. To prevent spillover problems,
cities could price on-street parking rather than require off-street
parking. Compared with minimum parking requirements, market prices can
allocate parking spaces fairly and efficiently. Posted with permission.
Parking Requirement Impacts On Housing Affordability
Zoning laws require residents to pay for a generous amount of parking,
whether they need it or not. This policy raises housing costs, reduces the
maximum potential density of development, and reduces developers' incentive
to build affordable housing. It is unfair to small and lower income
households who tend to own fewer than average vehicles, and often forces
poor families to subsidize the automobile parking of their wealthier
Land Use Impact Costs Of Transportation
Automobile oriented transport requires more land for roads and parking than
other forms of travel, and encourages low-density urban expansion (sprawl),
which increases per capita land development. These impose a variety of
costs, including increased costs for road facilities (including the
opportunity cost of land used for roads) and public services used by
drivers, environmental and aesthetic costs from reduced greenspace, and
higher per capita municipal and utility costs to serve lower density
development. Since many of these costs are borne by society as a whole,
benefits of increased driving and sprawl do not necessarily exceed total costs.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]