By The Antiplanner
As stated previously, I can’t take climate change seriously as long as people keep putting forward their wacko ideas that they had long before climate was an issue as “the solution.” The latest example is a claim that ending minimum parking requirements is “one solution to fight climate change.” I think the proponents of this idea are just totally confused.
The article credits Donald Shoup with the idea that eliminating minimum parking requirements “could pave the way for cities to build denser housing, increase public transit options, and reduce their carbon emissions.” Shoup is a decent researcher, but he has made parking the focus of his work since 1975, long before almost anyone was talking about global warming. It is one thing to note that minimum parking requirements might not be necessary. It is another to claim that eliminating them will do all the things listed above.
Ironically, this article comes from Texas, which doesn’t allow counties to impose minimum parking requirements or any other kind of zoning. Yet anyone driving through developments outside of Texas city limits will find plenty of parking available. Retailers, office managers, apartment owners, and others know that parking is necessary to attract customers and quality employees.
Beyond that, denser housing and public transit options have almost nothing to do with either parking or climate change. I don’t see any clear mechanism whereby abolishing market minimums would lead to denser housing or more transit. Even if there was one, transit in general, and Texas transit agencies in particular, emit more greenhouse gases per passenger-mile than driving a car. Denser housing means more traffic congestion which means more greenhouse gas emissions.
Shoup’s research found that people are more likely to drive alone to work if they have free parking when they get there. That may be true, but the effects are small and are partly self-selecting: people who want to drive to work will be more likely to accept a job if their employer offers free parking. Even if the effects were large, that doesn’t automatically mean there will be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, especially if less parking means some people drive around and around looking for a parking place.
While I have no particular objections to eliminating minimum parking requirements, this almost never happens. Instead, what city planners do is replace minimum parking requirements with maximum parking limits. The idea is that, if they punish people enough for driving, then maybe some of them will stop.
The fundamental problem is that there are no great alternatives to driving, which is the fastest, most convenient way to travel in urban areas and one that is far less expensive than transit. (Bicycling is less expensive but is neither fast nor convenient.) Rather than make transit better or more competitive, these climate wackos want to make driving slower or more costly. That has never worked and it isn’t going to work now.
People who are truly serious about climate change should find ways that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while allowing people to continue to live their lives as productively and enjoyably as possible, for example by reducing the impacts of the driving we do. When I start hearing about solutions like that, then I will take climate change issues seriously.
The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.
Originally published by The Antiplanner. Republished with permission.
To read about more useless climate change fighting ideas, click here.
