Advertisement

Dire Problem / Drastic Cures : The Squeeze Play

Share

“Sorry, lot is full.”

The ease of parking in suburbia has been blamed as a prime cause of increased driving. And some planners think the solution is to confront motorists with full lots.

They would create the shortage of parking space by placing limits on the number of spots that a builder could provide.

At present, most cities mandate a minimum number of spaces--three spots per 1,000 square feet of store space is common--but set no maximum.

Advertisement

Some planners suggest that only one or two spaces per thousand square feet should be allowed. Building owners probably would rent those spots to drivers willing to pay stiff rates or would make them available on a first come, first served basis.

Either way, driving should drop dramatically, say advocates of restrictive parking laws.

“We’ve been trying for years to make sure everyone who wants a spot has one,” said David Burwell, president of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy in Washington, D.C.

“We’ve made it so easy to drive that everyone does it without a second thought. We have to confront the driver with the real cost of driving.”

Employers and retailers, forced by competition to provide abundant parking, pass the cost on to consumers, Burwell said. “That way, everyone pays, whether they drive or not.”

“You can’t take away parking if you don’t provide rapid transit as an alternative,” said Douglas R. Porter of the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C. “Otherwise, no lender will put money into these new developments, because no one would rent space in them.”

He said that restricting parking works well in central city areas such as downtown Portland, Ore., where a light-rail system provides an alternative to the private car.

Advertisement

“But that’s not a situation you can replicate in the suburbs,” Porter added.

The Back Way

“Park in the back, please.”

Today, that’s an order usually reserved for delivery drivers and tradesmen.

But some planners think it would be well to require parking in the back for those visiting a mini-mall video store or doughnut shop as well. Some think office building developers also should be prohibited from placing a parking lot between their front door and the street.

That would make the centers less accessible to drivers but more attractive to those strolling on sidewalks.

But it also would make it more difficult for police to survey parking lots from the street, raising shoppers’ fear of crime.

“It’s an idea that’s been around for some time,” Porter said.

“But there are trade-offs, like increased fear of crime, and maybe that’s why it’s never been enacted anywhere as far as I know.”

Central Avenues

Today’s suburban neighborhood is shaped in a fortress-like grid, with many streets ending in cul-de-sacs and with a local shopping district at the edge, usually along a major thoroughfare.

Some community designers would like to change that pattern, which they contend locks the area into auto dependency.

Advertisement

They want to see a major thoroughfare--preferably in combination with a rail line--bisecting the community in order to put buses and trains within walking distance of more residences.

Neighborhood shopping also would be located in the community’s center, again to encourage walking.

“This kind of structure would tend to get people out of their cars and, in the process, create a greater sense of community,” San Francisco-based planning consultant Michael V. Dyett said.

A Happy Medium

Once, there was just the mini-mall and its big, big brother, the regional mall. Now comes the midi-mall--fresh from the minds of some urban planners seeking ways to reduce driving.

These in-between malls would be limited to 10 acres, enough space for one or two department stores.

They would be scattered and within walking or bicycling distance of most suburban residents.

Advertisement

Midi-mall advocates say that today’s regional malls, spaced five to 15 miles apart, leave shoppers little choice but to drive.

In the San Fernando Valley, mid-sized malls would be a radical departure. For instance, newly expanded Northridge Fashion Center, with six department stores, weighs in at 72 acres, while the mall under construction in downtown Burbank sprawls over 41 acres.

Dyett said midi-malls have been successful in Davis and Santa Rosa, “reducing the scale of the landscape and making it more accessible to non-driving customers.

But Porter said that mid-sized malls “might just result in people driving to two malls, with no overall reduction in vehicles on the road.”

Take a Hike

Eat where you work, and the world will be a slightly better place, say some planners.

These urban designers think the cityscape must change to reduce car dependency.

And one small step in that direction would be to alter zoning laws to require all major employment centers, especially new industrial parks, to provide shops and restaurants close to their center.

Not only will more workers walk to lunch rather than burning hydrocarbons driving to a distant eatery, but having restaurants nearby also will remove one more factor that discourages car-pooling and bus riding, these planners say.

Advertisement

“It won’t change the world,” Dyett said, “but small things like this add up.”

Reward Relief

States might deal more swiftly with congestion if the federal government would start rewarding mobility, not gridlock, some planners say.

At present, federal highway building funds are distributed with a formula that reflects total miles of highway in a state and total miles driven over those highways.

Some urban specialists think an incentive should be built in by giving more to states that relieve congestion through innovative means rather than by building more roads.

Although the proposal met widespread approval, there was much skepticism that a congestion-reduction standard could be devised.

“It’s a nice idea,” said Alan E. Pisarski, a transportation consultant from Falls Church, Va. “But we have never been able to adequately define levels of mobility, so how could we set standards broad enough to govern the distribution of the money across the nation?”

Cutting the Grass

Open space, the boon of suburbia, may be the bane of mobility, some urban planners say.

Federal policy that encourages setting aside open space between housing developments came under fire from a few planners.

Advertisement

They look at these popular greenbelts and neighborhood parks and see one cause of suburban sprawl.

“In the name of making communities more livable, we have caused the setting aside of thousands of undeveloped spaces,” Porter said.

“The fact is that these open areas spread a community out.”

Although several planners thought that it might be feasible to reduce the federal role in creating open space, all shied away from coercing communities to slash green areas in new developments.

“Open space is a sacred cow in many areas, to homeowners and environmentalists alike,” one planner said. “I’d hate to be the one to tell towns that they can’t break up developments with greenery.”

Advertisement