Skip to content

So Much Parking It Hurts

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

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

2559723208_231dc14e64.jpgPhoto by 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 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 pedestrian-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 Sen. Christopher Dodd, chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The Overhead Wire asks why the US 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.

Photo of Sarah Goodyear
Sarah Goodyear is a journalist and author who has covered cities and transportation for publications such as Grist, CityLab, and Streetsblog.

Read More:

Streetsblog has migrated to a new comment system. New commenters can register directly in the comments section of any article. Returning commenters: your previous comments and display name have been preserved, but you'll need to reclaim your account by clicking "Forgot your password?" on the sign-in form, entering your email, and following the verification link to set a new password — this is required because passwords could not be carried over during the migration. For questions, contact tips@streetsblog.org.

Comments are closed.

More from Streetsblog New York City

Opinion: Sean Duffy’s ‘Golden Age’ of Dangerous Streets

Ethan Andersen
December 15, 2025

‘I’m Always on the Bus’: How Transit Advocacy Helped Katie Wilson Become Seattle’s Next Mayor

December 12, 2025

Watchdog Wants Hochul To Nix Bus Lane Enforcement Freebies for MTA Drivers

December 11, 2025

More Truck Routes Are Coming To A Street Near You

December 11, 2025

Upstate County’s New Bus Service Will Turn A Transit Desert Into A Rural Network

December 11, 2025
See all posts