<html> <body> Mr. TenBrink raised a number of good questions, including whether reducing parking supply reduces automobile trips and congetion. The answer is that it certainly can, particularly if implemented in conjunction with improved transit service, and improved cycling and walking conditions. Several studies have found a strong negative correlation between downtown parking supply and transit ridership. Conventional parking standards, such as those published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the American Planning Association, assume that each destination should have the maximum amount of parking supply that may ever be needed over the facility's life, which results in most destinations having far more parking supply than they usually need. On-street parking is one of the most efficient ways of sharing parking facilities, so each space serves several destinations (homes in the evenings, shops during the day, pubs and restaurants in the evening) so each well-managed on-street space can substitute for three or four off-street spaces. The result is fewer total spaces required, allowing more compact development and encouraging "park-once" trips (motorist parks their car and walks to several destinations, rather than making several short vehicle trips). "Efficient management" includes efficient pricing of parking spaces, which is an excellent form of local revenue (see our new paper "Parking Taxes: Evaluating Options and Impacts" at <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/parking_tax.pdf</a> ). Of all the reforms we can make to encourage more efficient transportation, more efficient land use, and more equitable transportation funding, changing parking management practices to encourage efficiency is one of the most effective. For more information see: "Parking Management," a free report at (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf"> http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf </a>). Mott Smith, "Onsite Parking: The Scourge of America's Commercial Districts" (<a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/19246"> http://www.planetizen.com/node/19246 </a>). Donald Shoup, "The Price Of Parking On Great Streets" (<a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/19150"> http://www.planetizen.com/node/19150 </a>). Todd Litman, "Parking Management: Innovative Solutions To Vehicle Parking Problems" (<a href="http://www.planetizen.com/node/19149"> http://www.planetizen.com/node/19149 </a>). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 02:28 AM 4/26/2006, D. Scott TenBrink wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">This is in response to Walter, but may drift to cover other posts on some points. First, I think it is important to note that the promotion of on-street parking in this thread was in the context of choosing between on and off-street parking and not of changing the total parking supply.  Therefore, your claim that on-street parking ?consumes public space that otherwise could be used for children to play, people to sit and play dominoes, walk, etc.? does not consider that moving that parking off-street actually would consume more urban space.  Granted this may be offered on private property as opposed to public land, but many studies have shown that privately supplied parking is the least efficient manner of parking provision.  Overall, off-street parking will consume more resources and create more ?dead space? in the city than the on-street alternative. The promotion of on-street parking should not be confused with the promotion of free parking either.  I agree that on-street parking is generally under-priced, at least based on demand.  But the subsidization of driving through free parking is hardly limited to on-street supply.  Off street parking is much more expensive to provide and is often provided free for the end user.  When that cost is absorbed into the cost of products, it is passed on unfairly to those who choose not to drive. As I read him, Prof. Knoflacher is not opposed to on-street parking, but convenient parking, on or off the street.  He does not promote parking in the garage of one?s home over parking on the street in front of one?s home.  From <a href="http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/046%20Spring/02provocateur.html" eudora="autourl"> http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/046%20Spring/02provocateur.html</a> : ?If the car is parked in front of the house, or in the garage in the house and the public transport stop is several hundred meters away, everybody will use the car.? Further, the argument that transportation systems are biased for cars because public transit doesn?t stop in front of your door seems strange in that if transit did stop in front of everyone?s front door transit trips would take much longer than they currently do.  While I understand that the comparison is meant to suggest that convenient parking encourages private vehicles over transit, one should not infer that eliminating convenient parking would speed transit trips to those driving with convenient parking. Also, when you say that on-street parking ?biases modal choice towards private car use?, this can only apply to a preference over transit, and not NMT trips which require no parking, or generally convenient parking of a bicycle. I agree that a street that is safe to cycle on is preferable to separate cycling lanes, especially where those lanes are wide enough to allow bikes to pass auto traffic. Finally, I?d like to point out that in my experience in a small, mid-western town, it is the local merchants and city residents that are the first to cry foul over recommendations to reduce parking, especially on-street parking. While we may argue that reducing (or eliminating) parking would be better for the city in the long run.  They are the ones who have to make that decision and live with the results. I know that in Michigan the trend toward reducing State assistance to cities has put the fear of God into downtown retailers who are worried that reducing parking will kill downtown business.  Proposing an all-or-nothing approach on parking will get nowhere in this environment.  Todd Litman and Dan Schoup have done some great work in providing recommendations on how to manage parking efficiently to fully utilize the supply instead of expanding it, including integration of SOV alternatives. To reiterate, I (and I?m assuming the others promoting on-street parking) am not advocating more parking, free parking, or convenient parking.  If I?m advocating any parking it is efficient parking in order to reduce the need for greater supply and to minimize the impact on future development. I am interested in the idea of managing congestion through parking provision. I?ve often wondered if limiting parking would limit drivers.   My fear is that it would only limit parkers and not drivers, resulting in a city that people use as a short cut to get to the suburbs on the other side of town. I also like the idea of centralized parking with easy access to local transit to get around town, so that those who need to drive into town can park and transit can provide convenient ?last mile? service.</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>