是停车政策矮化城市可持续发展？

Planet

地球可能是瑞士nd of the Ps in the Triple Bottom Line conceptualization of sustainability (the other two are People and Profit), but it is certainly the centerpiece of much discussion. According to Shoup, the effect that parking has on the environment is partially due to economics. The example at the beginning of this article illustrates how the price of parking -- or lack of a price -- influences the choices we make when considering transportation. Under the predominant economic model, demand coexists in partial equilibrium with supply. When supply is high, the price is substantially low. Parking policy dictates that a certain amount of off-street parking be supplied by every building according to its use. According to Shoup, “Parking is free for 99 percent of all automobile trips in the U.S.” When practically unlimited free parking is available, why not drive? This makes driving much less expensive and pushes more frequent automobile usage, which in turn increases the number of total car trips made and the quantity of emissions making their way into the air.

“许多住宅街道已成为garagescapes - 看似是不是人们生活，但如果汽车停放地点 - 并进入大楼唯一明显的方法是使用电子车库门开启器。”唐纳德·舒普，免费停车的高昂成本

这些谁开车，但是，不必感到妖魔化。舒普比喻确定停车需求，以古代名医的中世纪实践的过程 - 也许不是恶意的，但基于伪科学，这导致创建更为车位比是必要的建筑物的使用给出。他报告说，策划人员经常使用的其他城市，或通常基于数据不足或统计学意义的研究停车产生率的要求。这项研究也通常是在郊区，其中公交线路有限，停车位，当然，免费进行。空格的数量通常是由建筑物的面积有多大来确定，其中很多人需要的空间坐空，但全年的几天。由于土地变得较不密集，兴趣点得距离较远，使得公共交通和步行甚至不太方便。车子再次获胜。舒普解释流动性的接近程度的影响，并在这种关系不仅影响到达目的地，但该想法，停车场可以驾驶必要的手段方式。他说，“在美国，流动性已经到了主要指带动无论你走到哪里，当你到达那里停放自由的能力。使用街边停车位的需求来提供这种流动性的问题是，它们减少接近。 Abundant parking makes it easier and cheaper to drive, but pandemic parking lots spread activities farther apart, making cars more necessary.”

With an increased number of cars comes not only more parking but bigger roads to ease congestion, which in turn encourages more drivers to take to the road. Shoup warns us that this cycle perpetuates urban sprawl, the growth in the area of a city and the shrinking density of urban centers. Large roads and parking and structures have other adverse effects. Impermeable materials, in these cases asphalt and具体, start to cover the surface area of the city, and less water can soak into the ground. It has to go somewhere, however. Often it runs to the city sewer systems, leading to a greater potential for洪水和stress onwater treatment facilities. As water moves from the cities and urban centers, it carries oil and contaminants, which quickly erode the banks of streams and rivers. Permeable surfaces and wetlands prevent flooding and serve as a natural filtration system for water that will eventually travel to water treatment plants and drinking water sources. As we cover green spaces with half-empty parking lots and mammoth roads, however, we limit these options.

Profit

As the old adage goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor is a parking space free. It requires digging, sometimesdemolition, raw materials, and manpower to build. Once built, a parking lot or structure requires maintenance and repair, sometimes lighting, security cameras, or elevators. Who is paying for all of this if the driver is not? One might answer, “The owner of the building.” Shoup, however, would point out that these costs, then, are incorporated into whatever products or services are associated with that particular building. We all pay for parking through the increased prices of the goods and services we purchase, regardless of whether we own a car or park at a lot.

舒普解释说，停车位，一个建筑是需要供应的数量通常是根据建筑物的使用和大小。在一些情况下，代替平方英尺的使用的座位，桌子，保龄球道，或其它相关的元件的数量。例如，可能需要一个教会在主会场每每四个席位提供一个停车位。餐厅，相比之下，可能每三席一个车位的需求。如果一个人希望那古老的教堂转换为一家餐厅（假设座位数将保持不变），改变土地利用将不被允许，除非是提供额外的停车位。适应性再利用和repurposing of buildings must take parking, including the determination of whether sufficient land is available for parking, into account.

“In the U.S., mobility has come to mean mainly the ability to drive wherever you go and to park free when you get there. A problem with using off-street parking requirements to provide this mobility is that they reduce proximity. Abundant parking makes it easier and cheaper to drive, but pandemic parking lots spread activities farther apart, making cars more necessary.” Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking

This issue becomes particularly salient when considering buildings constructed before these regulations went into effect. Such older buildings usually do not have to meet the regulation, unless they change land use. However, as Shoup explains, “Parking requirements triggered by a change of use severely limit the possible occupants for older buildings and stunt the economic development of older areas.” Parking policy then causes economic growth, as well as the likelihood of sustainable adaptive reuse, to stagnate. As well as limiting change of use, parking policy may stunt the growth of a particular business. Taking the example of the restaurant, Shoup explains that adding additional tables, whether inside the restaurant or perhaps on an outdoor patio, will increase the amount of parking that will be required. This again adds cost and many times is implausible, particularly for small businesses already stretching the use of their lots.

People

最低要求停车可以把阻尼器上的商业开发，但其影响甚至延伸到我们的后院，或者是缺乏。舒普提醒我们，原因停车的费用停车需求被“捆绑”与房屋本身的成本。“停车需求，”舒普说，“不仅增加了建造住房的成本，而且还通过限制其供应增加住房的价格。停车需求通常会降低住宅单位数目下面什么分区允许，因为允许住户单元和所需的停车位不能两个都挤在同一个站点的站点“。当我们为那些谁一般买不起或没有自己的车辆考虑住房，这一点尤其重要。舒普谴责每辆汽车需要有一个家的事实，但作为回报“停车需求做出真正的无家可归者问题更是雪上加霜。”即使是那些谁生活在低收入者的住房，但没有自己的车在收费捆绑价格 - 同样是这些人每次购买商品和服务时仍支付停车费。

Shoup references the2001 Nationwide Household Travel Survey, explaining that “only 73% of urban households with incomes less than $20,000 a year own a car.” That remaining 27%, then, uses an alternative form of transportation: walking, bicycling, or public transit. Because our urban design is primarily car-centered, people in this demographic are disadvantaged yet again by a lack of efficiency in their everyday survival (for example, in searching for a job or getting to and from the grocery store). Shoup mentions that even those 73% able to afford cars are even further disadvantaged, because the “cost of supporting a car then consumes a greater share of household income for poorer families.”

“通过使用一个变化触发停车需求严格限制的旧建筑可能居住者和特技旧区的经济发展。”唐纳德·舒普，免费停车的高昂成本

The truth of the matter is that parking lots are just plain ugly. They deface the architectural beauty of any community because they are built for cars, not people. More parking lots mean more private car trips and less carpooling and public transit, both of which are venues for social interaction. Our cars become small, private pods. Our cities become compartmentalized. “Many residential streets,” Shoup says, “have become garagescapes -- appearing to be a place not where people live, but where cars are parked -- and the only obvious way to enter a building is with an electronic garage-door opener.” Car-centered urban design makes cities less walkable, spontaneous conversation less probable, and the community at large less pleasant to be in.

So then, you ask, what is the solution? Does Shoup have all the answers? Of course he doesn’t. He does, however, have a slew of wonderful recommendations, from changing parking requirements to parking limits (as some regions have already done), letting the market determine the price of parking, and encouraging improved parking design (including more landscaping or street-level retail in multi-level parking structures). Shoup makes a great case for parking policy reform. The question is, then, where do we go from here, and how do you want to get there?