Too Much Parking

[Matt]

DC USA is a big urban mall type thingy that brought a Target, a Marshall's, a Best Buy, a Circuit City, and some other retailers to DC's gentrifying Columbia Heights neighborhood. It's located in a walkable community where most people don't own cars, across the street from a Metro station and within two blocks of four or five bus lines and right on the city's main north-south bike thoroughfare. Naturally, there was demand to build a huge quantity of parking for the facility much of which is now sitting empty.

This kind of overbuilding of parking is a substantial problem. There are only so many Metro stations and hence only so much space that's close to a Metro station. That space is a precious, precious commodity since building out a line to incorporate a new station is hugely expensive. It's fine for some of that valuable "right by a Metro station" space to be used as parking, but it ought to be economically competitive with other possible uses as housing, retail, or office space. Meanwhile, when parking is scarce and more people ride the Metro or the bus or walk or even just find themselves parking a few blocks away then the surrounding neighborhood is able to attract more benefit from the presence of customers heading to the big new complex. What you'd like to see in Columbia Heights is the new chain stores having a spillover effect that helps drive customers to the strip of local restaurants retail a few blocks away on 11th street (where right now a lot of the storefronts are vacant) but that doesn't happen if move move directly from car to garage to store to garage to car without ever setting foot in the neighborhood.

It's somewhat hard to see the damage done by this kind of overparking when it comes to such a large project as DC USA, but something like this smaller example illustrates the point clearly and then when you scale it up to a much larger facility things only get worse.

Comments

It is true that the parking garage is underutilized, but you're talking about a garage, not a parking lot; it is difficult to see who would be competing for the space the garage occupies. Nobody wants a condo or office on floor P3, which is to say 35 feet underground. And aren't there studies documenting extent to which urban congestion is a function of people circling their destinations looking for parking? I think it's a small miracle traffic flows so smoothly around DCUSA.

Posted by mark | May 29, 2008 5:19 PM

If you want to see a town with too much parking, drive through Durham, NC. I was in NC a few weeks ago and in a futile attempt to find some mainstream chain eatery, and after a few wrong turns I ended up driving through downtown Durham.

It seemed to me that there were more parking garages then buildings. It was also a ghost town by 7 p.m.

Posted by Splotto | May 29, 2008 5:19 PM

"...or walk or even just find themselves parking a few blocks away..."

I live in LA ("Transit?...We're workin' on it") and do this all the time. Behemoth pkg structures (Beverly Ctr, The Grove etc) are a nightmare, and you can usually find street pkg within a block or two. I am always aghast when I am driven by a friend to these places and they pull in to these multi-story monsters (and PAY for the "privilege" of doing so). And yeah, if you walk a block or two, you can get a coffee or look in a few shop windows...not the end of the world people!!

Posted by MattInLA | May 29, 2008 5:20 PM

Matt - have you seen this morning's WaPo story on the plan to redo Tyson's Corner? It sounds right up your alley:

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing Tysons is cost. To pay for new infrastructure, the task force is looking at special taxing districts or a development authority with borrowing power. But the real arrow in the quiver, as Tyler likes to say, is density. Allowing developers to build 10-, 20- or even 30-story buildings, one next to the other and without such conventional suburban requirements as parking and distance from the next property, is the key to exacting money from them to rebuild Tysons.

Background:

Getting it right has been a 3 1/2 -year undertaking for the Tysons Land Use Task Force, an unwieldy collection of neighborhood representatives, business leaders and developers that is preparing to release a 200-page recommendation on how to remake Tysons. Appointed in 2004 by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the task force has studied every aspect of redeveloping Tysons Corner: parking management, traffic patterns, a "circulator" bus line, affordable housing, sewers, storm water.

Needless to say, strong opposition is expected:

Powerful constituencies are lined up against them. Tysons covers fewer than 2,000 acres and is surrounded by well-established residential neighborhoods. These communities, primarily with McLean, Vienna and Falls Church addresses, are anxious about the impact of a major development boom in Tysons. Organized groups such as Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, the Greater Tysons Citizens Coalition and the McLean Citizens Association have criticized the task force for not demonstrating what the impact of development would be on traffic, schools and parks.
"We have supported an urbanization of Tysons, but there have to be sufficient public facilities there, one, to make it an attractive urban community, and two, to protect the surrounding neighborhoods," said Rob Jackson, president of the McLean Citizens Association.

I don't know where I sign up to support this idea, but damned if it doesn't look like they're really going to try to do it right, if they can fend off the NIMBYists.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | May 29, 2008 5:22 PM

Low-tech,

The real kicker in that Tysons article was the parking-to-space ratio:

"Tysons is Fairfax's de facto downtown, but it is a place with more parking (40 million square feet) than offices (28 million square feet)"

The "smaller example" linked in the last paragraph of the original post is just as ludicrous - it would call for 28 parking spaces for a 13,000 sf building - and 28 parking spaces would probably require, at a minimum, about 13,000 sf.

Posted by Alex B. | May 29, 2008 5:39 PM

My understanding is that big box stores like Best Buy want their parking spaces to accommodate the peak traffic on the day after Thanksgiving.

Posted by Anthony | May 29, 2008 6:58 PM

Fair enough but do you think part of the underutilization has to do with the crappy sales on that giant, ugly-ass set of condos across the street? I have a feeling that the folks drawn in by the pulsating light wall on Irving (SO out of place in the neighborhood) aren't exactly enthusiastic Metro riders. I'm not sure if DCUSA shares parking space with that building, though (but it would make sense given the shared timing and gentrifying impulse).

Posted by NS | May 29, 2008 7:06 PM

Parking is one of the hardest issues in urban/suburban planning. I spent eight years on the zoning board of adjustment in a mid-size city, and parking variances were a big part of our caseload. The developers want to provide as little as possible, because they want more rentable space; at the same time, they want to provide lots of parking, because they saw how insufficient parking killed all the downtowns in America. The merchants/tenants demand as much parking as possible, because they never want to lose a potential customer. In the planning and zoning process, neighbors (a) demand lower residential densities, because they equate larger lots with higher home values, (b) demand more retail, because it is a valued amenity, (c) also demand LESS retail, because they generate noise and trash and traffic, and (d) demand EVEN MORE parking, so the customers don't come and park on residential streets. The result is parking lots sized for Christmas-Eve crowds, underutilized the rest of the year. The equations developed by traffic engineers and built into most zoning codes may need to be readjusted if there is a permanent shift from cars to mass transit and "new urbanism" home-near-job ethos, but that won't happen until it is clear that the shift is permanent.

Posted by DHN | May 29, 2008 7:13 PM

They should leverage that parking for outside the core commuters, and put in a big bike rental spot. People could come pay for parking, switch modes to bus or metro, or get a free bike rental for the day so they can get downtown quickly and easily without tying up the streets with their escalades.

Posted by Adam | May 29, 2008 7:15 PM

big box stores like Best Buy want their parking spaces to accommodate the peak traffic on the day after Thanksgiving.

In which case, they should adjust their price list to accommodate shoppers who want day-after-Thanksgiving prices all year round.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 29, 2008 7:20 PM

Naturally, there was demand to build a huge quantity of parking for the facility much of which is now sitting empty. ... There are only so many Metro stations and hence only so much space that's close to a Metro station. That space is a precious, precious commodity since building out a line to incorporate a new station is hugely expensive.

From the description, it's a multi-story parking structure, and eliminating the empty second level wouldn't free up any additional land near the metro station at all. And the fact that it's empty now doesn't mean it always will be. Maybe the planners are expecting the demand for parking to grow.

Also, if the residents of this "walkable community" are choosing to shop at big box stores in a large mall that they must use cars or public transit to reach, just like their counterparts who live in the non-walkable suburban and exurban communities you hate so, rather than at smaller neighborhood stores they can reach on foot, it doesn't say much for the alleged benefits of "walkable communities."

Posted by Mixner | May 29, 2008 7:21 PM

Mixner clearly you do not live in a city.

DCUSA is very walkable. I would say 1/4 the people I see coming out of there, and that includes me every time I have been there, walk out. Also using mass transit is part of walkable communities.

Posted by nathaniel | May 29, 2008 7:36 PM

Meanwhile, the great satan of climate change otherwise known as greater Los Angeles (in my view cars represent the *anti-freedom* and suburbs the *anti-privacy*) has the second lowest C02 emissions of any city in the country.

Posted by Linus | May 29, 2008 7:40 PM

Matt,

You really should take a hiatus from all these posts where you explain how to fix transportation policy based on what you, a 26 year old bachelor, like. Come back when you have some kids and thus have a little more experience with what other kind of people really need.

If you can't wait that long, get some experience with how people actually live -- volunteer to do the shopping for your siblings and take your nephews and nieces along. Then you'll see what it's like.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 29, 2008 7:58 PM

Matt,

Ignore Steve Sailer. I've lived in DC for 30 years. We've raised two kids here. In that time, I've never driven to work. I've chosen my homes and workplaces so I could walk, bike or Metro. My experience is that your posts on transportation policy are spot on. Keep 'em coming.

Posted by Spike | May 29, 2008 8:32 PM

I've lived in DC for 30 years. We've raised two kids here. In that time, I've never driven to work. I've chosen my homes and workplaces so I could walk, bike or Metro. My experience is that your posts on transportation policy are spot on.

Your experience is obviously not remotely representative of that of Americans in general and is thus irrelevant to any serious discussion of transportation policy.

The sheer arrogance of elitist liberals and yuppie types who insist that since they like living a certain way everyone else ought to live that way too never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by Mixner | May 29, 2008 9:44 PM

DCUSA is very walkable. I would say 1/4 the people I see coming out of there, and that includes me every time I have been there, walk out. Also using mass transit is part of walkable communities.

I'm sure that bringing that flat-screen TV you just bought at Best Buy or the new ironing board you picked up at Target home on the Metro (or even worse, carrying them home on foot) is a lovely experience. One sometimes even sees people hauling bags of groceries home on the bus or the subway (mind those frozen items don't melt!).

Posted by Mixner | May 29, 2008 9:55 PM

Only Mixner could take a post about an already urban, already walkable neighborhood and use it as a screed to complain that liberals who live in walkable urban neighborhoods are trying to tell other people how to live. Mixner, it's Matt's neighborhood. It's the urban area with all the advantages that he actually likes and is pointing out that quality of life would go down by trying to get rid of its pedestrian-friendly advantages.

One might also note that there is a similar shopping complex in Tenleytown which does not use up a lot of above-ground real estate for parking.

One sometimes even sees people hauling bags of groceries home on the bus or the subway (mind those frozen items don't melt!).

You're never concerned about the people who have to drive 20 minutes back from the grocery store with their frozen goods in tow.

Posted by Tyro | May 29, 2008 10:09 PM

Only Mixner could take a post about an already urban, already walkable neighborhood and use it as a screed to complain that liberals who live in walkable urban neighborhoods are trying to tell other people how to live.

Tyro is apparently so easily confused that he cannot distinguish a comment Mixner made in response to a previous comment, even though Mixner quoted that comment immediately in front of his response, from a comment made in response to Matt's post. I wish I could say this was the first time Tyro had missed the blindingly obvious.

You're never concerned about the people who have to drive 20 minutes back from the grocery store with their frozen goods in tow.

I doubt that more than a small fraction of grocery-store-to-home trips by car take as long as 20 minutes. If you have to walk or use public transit, on the other hand, it's probably going to take you longer than 20 minutes. If you miss your bus or train, because it's running late, or early, or you didn't time it right, or because you had to wait longer than expected in the checkout line, it's probably going to take you a lot longer than 20 minutes. And you're not going to be able to carry nearly as much stuff as you could if you drove. Like many other proponents of "walkable communities" and public transit, you really seem oblivious to just how much more convenient and comfortable and flexible and functional cars are compared to alternative ways of getting around, going shopping, running errands, etc. But the huge advantages of cars are pretty clear to most Americans, which is why the use of public transit in America is largely limited to a handful of old-style, densely-populated areas originally developed long before the rise of motor vehicles, or to people too poor or infirm to drive.

Posted by Mixner | May 29, 2008 11:09 PM

Mixner is alos ignoring the millions of people who live just liek Spike in Chicago, NYC and many other cities.

You're right in my walkable neighborhood in Portland I would have a hard time carrying home a flat screen TV. Which is why Best Buy isn't located here! Lets see I walk to the grocery store and restauarants every day. I drive to the big box retailer to buy a big screen TV once very 5 years or so...

Posted by eric k | May 29, 2008 11:10 PM

Hey, Tyro, this one is a parking garage too, just like Tenleytown. No surface parking. Honest.

Posted by mark | May 29, 2008 11:12 PM

You're right in my walkable neighborhood in Portland I would have a hard time carrying home a flat screen TV. Which is why Best Buy isn't located here! Lets see I walk to the grocery store and restauarants every day. I drive to the big box retailer to buy a big screen TV once very 5 years or so...

Best Buy lists two stores in Portland and another two in Beaverton. I somehow doubt they manage to stay in business through once-every-five-years trips to buy a TV.

Portland's transit and land-use policies have a been a disaster for most of the people living in and around that city. They have made housing unaffordable, created huge congestion, and diverted scarce resources from schools and other important public services in order to build boondoggle rail and streetcar systems.

Posted by Mixner | May 29, 2008 11:35 PM

My wife and I are currently searching for a new apartment and, amusingly enough, one we're considering is right next door to a Fry's Electronics. So, I could stroll over there to buy a new TV or computer, or I could even just swing by to pick up a snack or browse through the magazines.

Mixner:
Your experience is obviously not remotely representative of that of Americans in general and is thus irrelevant to any serious discussion of transportation policy.

Mixner, you're confusing the fact that most Americans drive for most of their trips with the notion that then we must therefore stamp out any accommodation for any other mode of transportation, or acknowledgment of the needs of those who might not be able to or want to drive, or acknowledgment that these people might live somewhere other than Manhattan. These people --- the poor, the elderly, the young, the disabled, plus plenty of Americans able to drive who nevertheless find other modes of transportation preferable for certain trips for a variety of reasons --- may not be a majority outside of a few big central cities, but in your world they might as well be invisible. I'm sure it's reassuring to live in a world where one solution fits everyone's problems, but that world is not the real world.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 29, 2008 11:51 PM

My few visits to DC have not succeeded in uncovering this overabundance of parking of which you speak. Perhaps I just don't have The Sight.

Posted by Paul Camp | May 30, 2008 1:33 AM

Mixner,

Our school funding is messed up becasue of Measure 5, a stupid CA style anti propoerty tax iniative.

Of ocurse there are Best Buy's and other big box stores in Portland, the point is each person only makes big purchases every few years, vs things like grocery stores where everyone shops all the time. The Best Buys and other big box stores are on the fringes of the city not the city center.

I and most of the people who live here will happily keep our land use policies thank you, we much prefer our city to the SW suburban hells you seem to like. We like an urban growth boundry that means we have a Willamette valley full of vineyards and farms instead of housing developments, which is what developers wanted to build there back in the 70s.

As for our trains and streetcars, catch up with the data, they are usually SRO these days, lets comapre notes again in 10 years when Gas is even more expensive and see what cities were ahead of the game.

Posted by eric k | May 30, 2008 2:52 AM

Fogot to add, if you think Portland has huge congestion I want to some of what your somking. Poeple around here who think our traffic is bad are people with no experience anywhere else. Seattle has congestion, LA, the Bay Area. We have minor traffic slow downs during rush hour. A communte from downtown to Vancouver that takes 25 minutes with no traffic at the absolute worst takes and hour during rush hour. Taking Highway 26 to Beaverton is probably the worst and it maybe goes from 15 to 45 minutes, and is easily avoided by Light Rail. I think most cities would consider our worst rush hour a good day.

Posted by eric k | May 30, 2008 3:01 AM

Mixner,
A "walkable" community is also a community that will offer very short car trips to many amenities-- rather like the suburban subdivision in which I grew up. I agree that grocery shopping is one of those chores that a car is often necessary for. And while the anti-auto purists will still carp about it, a car trip of a mile or so is preferrable, in terms of tims and money and, yes, gas usage and emissions, to one of ten miles.

Posted by JonF | May 30, 2008 7:20 AM

As JonF suggests, there is a very wide middle ground between being able to walk to every amenity and not being able to walk to any amenity. In that sense, "walkability" is a scale, not a yes/no question. Also, "walkability" as a concept usually includes being within walking distance of competitive public transit (e.g., you don't have to literally be within walking distance of a local employment center, stadium, airport, and so on, if you can walk to public transit which will quickly take you to such amenities).

And so the more walkable the neighborhood, the less you may need to use a car, but that doesn't mean you might never need the use of a car. Practically, at minimum that would mean saving on the operating expenses of cars (gas, parking, mileage-related depreciation, and so on). But it could also mean a family needing only one car instead of two. Indeed, increasingly it could mean switching to car sharing services, as opposed to owning and garaging a car for your household's exclusive use. And, of course, there are always taxis, which is another way of using cars without actually having to own and garage them.

In short, it is rather juvenile for people to view this as some sort of zero-sum competition between different modes of transport. Rather, it is simply about making the most efficient use of the various possible modes of transport, and using those different modes when, but only when, they are the most efficient is a value-creating project.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 7:56 AM

One thing that has been ignored here: half of the stores in and around DCUSA are not yet occupied. The Sports Club opens June 1st. Staples opened just two days ago. There will likely be a large organic grocer coming in. Those three amenities alone should increase traffic substantially. There are five restaurants going in adjancent to DCUSA in the next 3-4 months. Plus all of the now-empty store fronts on Irving and 14th will be filled in. As more stores fill in, and more people learn about DCUSA (which, after all, just opened) I am sure there will be a lot mroe traffic in the garage. in all events, as noted above that underground space is otherwise useless in all events. But I bet a year from now, when there are twice as many businesses open in and around DCUSA, there will be a LOT more need for that parking.

Posted by Jeff | May 30, 2008 8:26 AM

DTM,

Rather, it is simply about making the most efficient use of the various possible modes of transport

If you were truly interested in transport efficiency, you wouldn't be a rail fanboy. Rail makes sense in only a very small number of locations, with very particular and unusual features.

As JonF suggests, there is a very wide middle ground between being able to walk to every amenity and not being able to walk to any amenity.

In the transit-deprived suburbs and exurbs that you so despise, but that Americans have consistently favored for decades, there are these things called "malls" where lots of stores and restaurants and movie theaters and other entertainment centers are located. People drive to the mall, park their car, and then walk between the various facilities they wish to visit. This arrangement is clearly superior to "walkable neighborhoods" in all important respects. It allows for bigger and better housing, more convenient and flexible travel, and a larger number and variety of conveniently-located shopping/dining/entertainment services, which is why it has been the overwhelmingly favored model for decades.

Posted by Mixner | May 30, 2008 7:33 PM

Malls have been out of favor for like 20 years now. Nobody is building malls. They've been overtaken by "lifestyle centers," which in a sense, are kind of like outdoor malls, but in another important sense, aren't. A lifestyle center is basically a faux version of an actual city-center downtown. Lots of them even have a residential component.

Posted by too many steves | May 30, 2008 7:56 PM

Re: This arrangement is clearly superior to "walkable neighborhoods" in all important respects.

I specifically mentioned that I grew up in a suburban subdivision, with mainly single-family housing and front back and side yards. And yet, it was walkable! Within walking or biking distance we had my grade school, my middle school (high school was across town), five churches, two parks, a grocery store, a convenience store (with liquor), a pharmacy, a K-Mart, two banks, a medical and dental clinic, a full-service station, a pizzeria, greasy spoon restaurant, beauty parlor, laundromat, shoe store, ladies clothing store, a Hallmark gift store and a hardware. I cannot imagine why you should regard that sort of convenience with disgust! And yes, some things we didn't have and we had to drive to them: my high school, mentioned above, was across town. There were no decent restaurants close at hand, nor fast food not counting the fore-mentioned pizzeria. If you were into a church other than our five you had to make a road trip on Sunday. The mall was seven miles away, the municipal offices and DMV were not close, we had no movie theater, no book store, no pet store, no music store. We also had no bars or nightclubs. We did drive, we didn't just walk, and, yes, I don't think cars (of some sort or other) will ever be obsolete unless we learn how to teleport. They are needed in hostile weather (on really, really bad days my mother even drove me to grade school-- a mere block away), you need them to transport cargo, passengers and pets, and to make longer trips. Still, with gas rising $4 a gallon and traffic congestion a bitch, why would you find a subdivison like my childhood one unattractive? And why do you think a bigger house is better? If you don't have a large family what in the world do you need with lots of excess space? I can see a large yard maybe (but that's me; I like to garden), but some pseudo-palace of a house for one or two people? Ugh!

Posted by JonF | May 30, 2008 10:11 PM

Mixner,

Again, one of your (many) basic conceptual problems is that you insist on treating these as competitive issues. For example, I am no more a "fanboy" of trains than I am of airplanes, cars, boats, bicycles, or so on. That is because I see absolutely no reason to have to choose which of these modes of transport to like more than the others, and indeed I have used all of them on a regular basis at various points in my life. And frankly, I think your selective ludditism when it comes to trains is laughable ... you seem fine with other transportation technologies, but if a vehicle rides on rails, suddenly you reach for your pitchfork.

Similarly, I don't "despise" relatively unwalkable suburbs and exurbs without good public transit service. Rather, I am fine with each person seeking out the sorts of living circumstances they prefer, and I understand that different Americans like different things. Indeed, I again think it is laughable that you seem to think there is something fundamentally unAmerican about people who don't particularly like malls, who would prefer not to drive to work, or so on.

In short, you have exhibited an irrational hatred of trains, and an irrational hatred of every other sort of living circumstances besides the ones you like best. And unless you can overcome these irrational hatreds, you will never be able to meaningfully contribute to these discussions, and instead will just keep making a fool of yourself.

Posted by DTM | May 30, 2008 11:49 PM