Maybe part of the answer to concerns about parking is reducing supply by incentivizing the purchase and use of tiny cars.
Free parking for tiny cars?
Seattle’s Land Use Map
Seattle’s Land Use Code Blog- Build, Baby, Build! “Overbuilding” Seattle May Be a Good Idea May 21, 2012Among the more risible arguments advanced by the anti-growth crowd is that somehow by allowing more development in Seattle we will end up overbuilt, with too many housing units and not enough people to fill them. One Seattle City Councilmember … Continue reading →
- Capitol Hill: Goodbye Bauhaus, Hello Future! April 7, 2012Sigh. Here we go again. From the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. Another half-block of Pike/Pine has been purchased by an Eastside developer with plans to create a new mixed-use development that will likely push out several long-running commercial tenants and residents of … Continue reading →
- Get Serious: Is There a John Fox of Density? March 31, 2012One thing I have found fascinating over the last year of writing in this space and elsewhere is how serious some people take this land use stuff. I quickly wrote a post drawing an analogy between cars and buildings when … Continue reading →
- Moving from ‘Talk’ to ‘Do’ March 30, 2012Here’s my dilemma. I care about this city, Seattle, and what happens to it over the next twenty years. But I feel like we spend more time talking, clearing our throats, and adjusting our clothes in the mirror, rather than … Continue reading →
- They Call it Democracy February 27, 2012Exactly one year ago yesterday, I sat down and wrote what was the first post on this blog, an enterprise undertaken with a mix of curiosity and frustration. The outcome of this effort was intended to be personal (running the … Continue reading →
- Seattle Transit Blog Post: Single Family Backlash February 21, 2012Over at Seattle Transit Blog, what started out as a rallying cry for supporters of smart growth, density, and transit to consider whether reforming elections and government rapidly became a discussion about the sacred form, single family. Seattle is a … Continue reading →
- Roosevelt: An E-mail to the City Neighborhood Council January 17, 2012What follows is my response to a forwarded e-mail by my friend (I hope he still is) Tony Provine who sits on the City Neighborhood Council. The City Council today will pass the rezones that have been much ballyhooed, and … Continue reading →
- Build, Baby, Build! “Overbuilding” Seattle May Be a Good Idea May 21, 2012
What about “induced demand”? Basically, it’s the reason that building on extra highway lanes doesn’t result in less traffic, rather, paradoxically, in more traffic. If the situation of driving or parking becomes less of a nuisance, thereby making the commodity (driving or parking) more attractive than it previously was. Conclusion: if parking is not temporarily less annoying because there is more space for cars, because cars are smaller, then more people will drive because parking is now more attractive. Part of the reason that some people give up their car or take a different means of transportation is because parking or driving is so annoying. If we want more people to give up driving in lieu of bicycles, public transit, or sidewalks, then we have to make those things more attractive or rewarding (time and cost ratio) while making driving and parking even more attractive.
In fact, I’ve heard many talk of the way that alternative energy sources can drive up demand for gasoline, instead of helping to meet demand. If we want people to consume less gas for their cars or to drive less, we have to increase the cost of gasoline, not make cars more efficient (thereby lowering the cost of gas for them per mile). In “Green Metropolis” by David Owen, he talks about this principle and even discusses how those who buy energy-efficient homes or cars tend to consume more energy than before because they feel so good about themselves for buying an energy efficient widgit, that their consumption doesn’t diminish. With price increases (through inefficient vehicles, homes or supply problems), demand for energy will sky-rocket if we don’t change our habits of usage or living situation, but after some time (hopefully a short-time), people learn how to live lives of less consumption since they can’t afford to be wasteful.
For example, if the cost of water goes up a lot, people won’t be able to afford much of it, probably. The first thing that will go is grass watering, for most people who are hard pressed for money. Maybe the next time they look at real estate, they will choose a house with a smaller yard, or maybe an apartment or condo with only a balcony, where they can water flowers instead. Maybe people will be creative with their yards and not just plant St. Augustine grass (that plush, popular grass, which is the thirstiest of all grasses). Wouldn’t it be better for the environment if people changed they habits?
Sorry for typos. I mean’t to say:
What about “induced demand”? Smaller cars may increase demand, which is bad for the goal of reduced car dependence and energy independence.
Induced Demand is the reason that building on extra highway lanes doesn’t result in less traffic, rather, paradoxically, it results in more traffic.
If the situation of driving or parking becomes less of a nuisance, the commodity (driving or parking) becomes more attractive than it previously was. Result: people drive more cars, and any cars, even little cars, are not good for the environment and helpful in making our towns and cities more accessible for everyone.
if parking is less annoying because there is more space for cars, because cars are smaller, then more people will drive because parking is now more attractive.
Part of the reason that some people give up their car or take a different means of transportation is because parking or driving is so annoying. If we want more people to give up driving in lieu of bicycles, public transit, or sidewalks, then we have to make those things more attractive or rewarding (time and cost ratio) while making driving and parking less, not more, attractive.
Hi Rebecca,
I don’t disagree with you. I was being a little snarky with my “small car” pictures. Your points are all dead on in terms of the way we get at changing behavior. But we have to agree and admit that first, we do want to change behavior and second, that this is the behavior we want to change.
Unfortunately we spend a lot more time arguing about “right” and “freedom” when it comes to parking that “costs” and “price.” Like everything parking costs something to provide and we confuse our “right” to park with cheap parking.
If parking was priced based on supply and demand rather than government putting its finger on the scale, it would be more expensive. That would mean demand would drop and people would seek other options.
But we don’t do that typically. It is getting better, but we have a ways to go.