The Challenges of Free Off-Street Parking - Research Paper Example

The Challenges of Free Off-Street Parking College: The Challenges of Free Off-Street Parking The cost of free off-streetparking requirements is a topic that has drawn a lot of controversy within the transportation policy development in the US. Urban land use planning is an important aspect of economic development within a country. There has evolved a controversy on the role of controlled parking zones and the availability of the free parking zones off the streets. The department of Urban Planning in the US has established approaches in which they assign the number of parking lots depending on the demand. The rationale is that the number of parking zones be proportional to the capacity of institutions to ensure that there is adequate parking space. The main idea of the urban planning committee has been to reduce the cost of parking by enforcing the minimum parking requirements. However, it is clear that the minimum parking requirements have come along with higher hidden costs that have for long been ignored. For instance, it has led to increased congestion in town and the rise in air pollution in the towns. Furthermore, public land has gone to waste and people have to pay for these parking lots in one way or the other. Therefore, it is a good economic policy to have a measurable cost of off street parking to ensure that the negative impacts of free off street parking are eliminated. Urban planning is an important aspect of the government development plan as it deals with efficient use of land in urban and sub urban regions. Land is a scarce resource that requires to be utilized optimally to ensure that the country reaps economic benefits from its efficient use. The planning department in the US comes up with design plans that regulate from the way land is used to the way parking areas are assigned (Millard-Ball, Weinberger and Hampshire, 2014). Resultantly, the urban planning committee has for long produced strategies that land users must follow to ensure that they utilize the land optimally. Parking is just one of the agenda that urban planning department has to handle in its duties. The size, cost and space allocation of the parking lots are important factors in the design of urban land. Questions that arise today is whether there is effective utilization of urban land in the design for parking and whether the current parking designs are optimally beneficial to these areas. Millard-Ball, Weinberger and Hampshire (2014) are among the researchers who have focused on the challenges that come along with the consequences of shortage of parking space in the US. One big challenge is the negative impacts of cruising in search for parking lots. They point out that shortage in parking space requires that car owners travel over 3600 miles more in search for a parking space. Notably, this is unnecessary wastage of time, which results to economic backwardness. In San Francisco, the level of air pollution is in the rise due to excessive travel of automobiles as they find some space to park their cars even for five minutes (Millard-Ball, Weinberger and Hampshire, 2014). Besides, double parking is a problem of central focus for urban planners due to irregularities associated with this behavior. The congestion of vehicles in on-street parking results to reduce mobility as it becomes hard for people to exit the parking lots once they intend to leave town (Houston, Wei & Jun, 2014). On this note, it is clear that there is demand for adequate parking space to ensure that there is smooth flow of traffic and to reduce the challenges of on-street parking. The US department for urban land planning has come up with a parking plan that ensures that there is ample parking space and that the rising statistics of urban automobiles is accounted. One of the challenges that urban planners have endeavored to fight is the problem of congestion in the urban regions. In the last 10 years the number of automobiles flowing in town has increased by over 30% (Houston, Wei & Jun, 2014). This points out to the rise in demand for parking spaces within the urban regions. The congestion in the parking zones in many towns in the US has become an issue of attention among the public. The principle aim of the government is to provide ease in accessibility of towns to stimulate economic growth. With the availability of ample parking space, it is motivating for many automobile owners to visit town. This streamlines the transport mechanisms allowing the public to be efficient in their daily activities. For instance, a manager who has a personal automobile can afford to arrive early in his work place, which is crucial for the development of the economy. Parking planning is also important in preventing the problem of spillover and double parking that often evokes a lot public attention and leads to criticism of the urban planning departments (Shoup, 2006). Therefore, parking planning is an important aspect of the government as it helps to overcome the challenge that comes along with the increase in the number of automobiles flowing in the urban areas. The concept of minimum parking requirements is part of the policies that the department of urban planning has used to overcome many challenges that exist in the design of transport policies. The minimum parking requirements in the US are based on the estimations of the parking demands within town facilities with free parking and no transit options. The minimum parking requirements aim at reducing the cost for parking for the public and ensuring that there is ample space for every car within the suburban regions. In many towns such as San Francisco, there are many free parking lots that the government provides for the public (Shoup, 2006). Free parking spaces are also available within restaurants and hospitals that motivate the people to visit. The argument of the US planning department has been that setting up minimum parking requirements helps to reduce cost of living, which is one important aspect of the government responsibility to the public. So far, the government has ensured that about 99% of automobile in the US has access to free parking zones, hence motivating town visitors as one way of stimulating economic development (Jakaitis, Paliulis & Jakaitis, 2009). However, more keen scholars have presented a different side of the same coin. Shoup (2006) argues that the minimum parking requirements pose a wide range of challenges to the economy of the US. He appreciates that today the government has the big challenge of reducing the cost of living for the public and reducing the cost of parking is one important solution of the problem. He asserts that the minimum parking requirements “increase the supply and reduce the price – but not the cost – of parking” to criticize the government provision of free off-street parking (P. 1). This statement implies that while the minimum parking requirements ensure that parking is available and reduces the parking prices, it raises the cost of parking to the government as well as to the people. Therefore, government parking policies have negatively affected the public and proportionally destabilized the government’s economy. Therefore, he advocates for changes in the parking policies to ensure that the government minimizes the costs that have been introduce by poor parking policies. One unmeasured cost of providing free off-street parking is the inefficient utilization of land within the urban and suburban regions. Land is a crucial government resource that the government needs to use effectively to ensure that there is an optimal benefit to the economy. The value of urban land is very high and this implies that wasting even one acre would be a great economic loss for the government. However, it is clear that free off-street parking has ignored the cost of implementing this plan. The minimum parking requirements policies requires that each town facilities such as health units have adequate ample parking space that is proportional to the capacity of the health care unit. Shoup (1997, P. 2) asserts there is “high cost of free parking” to denote the ignorance of urban planners in providing free off street parking to the public. Notably, free off-street parking consumes a big size of land, which is more than that used by the facility. Research shows that the amount of space left for off-street parking is 20% more than one left for constructions (Mena Report, 2014). This clearly shows that free off-street parking is expensive as it leads to wastage of land. Considering that land is an expensive government resource, losing it constrains economic development in the country. The wasted land would have been used for other purposes such as constructing business houses that can generate income for the country. Therefore, it clear that free off-street parking has negative consequences that limit economic growth in the US. Another negative impact of free off-street parking is that it does not reduce the cost of living for the people but makes it more expensive. Many business organizations in the US have used free parking as an attraction for shoppers (Shoup, 1997). For instance, many supermarkets provide free ample parking to their customers to motivate them to purchase from their stores. This is a great advantage for many entrepreneurs as this ensures that there is a constant flow of customers who have a high purchasing power. Therefore, these organizations have higher income and hence become organizations of economic importance to the government. However, it is clear that in one way or the other, the customer end up paying for the parking indirectly. Research shows that organizations that provide free off-street parking sell their items at a much higher price than those that do not provide parking. On average, Hotels that provide free parking have the prices of their products higher by about 10% (Mena Report, 2014). Therefore, the customers pay for the parking indirectly by paying high-priced goods. Therefore, it is clear that this free-off-street parking does not come for free to the customer; there is always a price to pay for the service. Additionally, free off street-parking is likely to result to increase in the level of air pollution in the ecological system. While it was thought that providing such parking facility would reduce the carbon footprint by reducing the cruising distance, it is clear that this may not be achieved. In fact, free parking will lead to an increase in the carbon footprint, contrary to what the parking management strategies thought (Levinson, 2006). When free parking is available, more people can use their vehicles in town, which results to an increase in the quantity of gas emitted in the atmosphere. In the recent past, the rising number of vehicles in urban areas has become an issue of concern for environmentalists. The idea of many environmentalists is that there is need for the government to reduce the inflow of vehicles within the urban and suburban regions. Since the introduction of the free off-street car parking zones, there has been higher release of carbon compounds which are the result of the developing greenhouse effect. Therefore, it has become an issue of concern to control the flow of vehicles in the urban areas (Stewart, 2012). From this angle, it is more important to reduce the amount of traffic flowing into the urban areas and hence a moment to rethink the parking management strategies. Another negative impact of free parking zones is that there is no optimal utilization of the parking zones. Often, the parking space reserved for free parking is much more than is required by the public. In the US, the parking space available for the public is 20% more than the one demanded by the public. Even if all the workers would use automobile for commuting in US, there would be still plenty of space left for parking. Given that only about 90% of the US workers use automobile for commuting to work, it is clear that there is more than necessary space for parking (Levinson, 2006). This raises the question of the optimal utilization of land in the urban areas. The parking space has taken priority over economic development of the country. Levinson (2006, P. 14) states that there is too much “wasted space” in the effort to provide free off-street parking. Space that would have been utilized for expanding urban construction is underutilized and left completely idol. The end effect is that the urban areas have little opportunity to expand, hence constraining economic growth in this country. On this ground, it is possible to argue that free off-street parking zones deprives the economy and works against the principle of urban expansionism. From a critical point of view, there is need to focus on more efficient car parking management strategies to eliminate the challenges that have trailed the free off-street parking zones. As a matter of fact, Marsden (2006, p. 1) advocates for “reviewal of parking policies” for efficient urban planning. The best path to follow while designing new parking management policies is measuring the cost of each parking strategy. The main challenge with the design of parking methods is that the department of urban planning has ignored indirect costs of different parking methods. Mainly, they have focused on the price paid for each method and forgotten the costs of land and environment. The consequence of this is that the opportunity cost has become very high. A lot of land has been wasted and the pollution has increased after the design policies that allowed free off-street parking zones. Resultantly, slow economic development has been experienced within urban areas as there is no space to expand businesses. Edwards (2012, P. 1) argues that we should “maximize the use of street space for parking” rather than provide free off-street parking zones. The idea of the scholar is that parking policies should advocate for angle parking rather than parallel parking. Angle parking consumes less space as compared to parallel parking, suggesting that if the former approach is used the street would provide parking for more vehicle with lower chances of congestion. This would also solve the problem of spillover parking and cruising rates. Using this approach would help to counteract the negative impacts of free off-street parking. Other authors have suggested there is need for the government to liberate the private sector to allow control the size of their parking zones. Wilson (2011) is one of the scholars that set out to research the sub-urban parking requirements in South California considering the aspects of travel behavior, development density, development cost and the urban design. Wilson (2011, P. 1) suggested that there is need for “appropriately pricing and controlling on-street parking.” This implies that the solution to the problem of minimum parking requirements is focusing on procedures to optimize the utilization of the on-street parking zones. This is in line with the idea that provision of off-street parking is costly and uneconomical in the long run. Also, he suggests that there is need to allow the private sectors to decide the amount of off-street parking that they wish to provide to the public. This way, there will adequate optimization of space and prevent the wastage of public land, which has become a hindrance to expansion of the city. Additionally, eliminating the free off-street parking zones will allow the business malls in the central business district to compete fairly with those malls in the suburban regions that provide free parking (Wilson, 2011). Counteracting the negative impact of this free parking policy will provide an opportunity for developing sustainable business in urban areas, which is crucial for the growth of mature business districts. In conclusion, the provision of free off-street parking was a short term solution to a problem that required a long term focus. To begin with, the free parking zones limit the land use and prevent the expansion of business in town. The policies of minimum parking requirements have resulted to the availability of idol parking space that is greater than even the traffic flow in urban areas. The consequence of this is that efficient land use has become an issue of concern for the public. Apart from this, it is clear that these free parking zones come along with additional indirect cost such as the rise in the price of goods. Therefore, it is clear that the free off-street parking policies in US have affected economic development negatively. Therefore, there is need for the urban planning engineers to figure out alternative parking management strategies that promote development of mature business districts. It would be recommendable to figure out new strategies to utilize the on street parking space more efficiently. Secondly, it would be crucial to eliminate the minimum parking requirements that have led to wastage of crucial land resources. This can be done only if the urban planners have a measurable cost for free off-street parking to promote economic development in the US. References Edwards, J. D. (2012). Changing on-street parallel parking to angle parking. Institute of Transportation Engineers.ITE Journal, 72(2), 28-33. Retrieved from: Houston, D., Wei, L., & Jun, W. (2014). Disparities in Exposure to Automobile and Truck Traffic and Vehicle Emissions Near the Los Angeles-Long Beach Port Complex. American Journal Of Public Health, 104(1), 156-164. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301120 Jakaitis, J., Paliulis, N., & Jakaitis, K. (2009). Aspects Of The National Urban Policy Management Under Conditions Of Integrated Planning. Technological & Economic Development Of Economy, 15(1), 26-38. Doi:10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.26-38 Levinson, D. (2006). The high cost of free parking. American Planning Association.Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 459. Retrieved from Marsden, G. (2006). The evidence base for parking policies—a review. Transport Policy, 13(6), 447-457. Mena Report, (2014). United States: U.S. Parking Facilities Cut Energy Use by 90 Percent, Switch 270 Million Square Feet to Energy Efficient Lighting. Millard-Ball, A., Weinberger, R., & Hampshire, J. (2013). Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? Assessing the efficacy of San Franciscos parking experiment. In Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Newman, N. C., Ryan, P., LeMasters, G., Levin, L., Bernstein, D., Hershey, G., & ... Dietrich, K. N. (2013). Traffic-Related Air Pollution Exposure in the First Year of Life and Behavioral Scores at 7 Years of Age. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(6), 731-737. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205555 Shoup, D. C. (1997). The high cost of free parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), 3-20. Shoup, D. C. (2006). The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 33(7), 549-574. Stewart, J. M. (2012). Accounting for external costs and benefits in the assessment of the optimal allocation of an amenity: A case study. Eco - Management and Auditing, 6(4), 174. Retrieved from: Wilson, R. W. (2011). Suburban parking requirements. American Planning Association.Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1), 29. Retrieved from: Read More