Latest news with #DonaldShoup
Fast Company
06-08-2025
- Sport
- Fast Company
Cities clearly have a sidewalk problem. It's less clear who should fix it
Denver has a sidewalk problem. About 40% of its sidewalks are missing or don't meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remarkably, the city's own plan recommended a fix over 20 years ago: Move responsibility for sidewalk repair from property owners to the city and implement an annual fee to pay for the program. The fix might seem simple, but it took over 20 years and grassroots advocacy to make it happen. 'In 2022 we just got tired of waiting and decided to do a citizen-initiated ordinance,' says Jill Locantore, executive director of the Denver Streets Partnership, a group of community organizations pushing for multimodal streets in the city. 'Which is basically implementing exactly what the city's own plans had been saying we should do.' Sidewalk advocates fought and won. The ballot measure, dubbed 'Denver Deserves Sidewalks,' swayed 56% of voters. There was no organized opposition to the measure. 'Don't underestimate how sexy sidewalks are,' says Locantore. Sidewalk repairs started July 2025. Could Denver's program serve as a model? Denver isn't alone with its sidewalk woes. Cities across the U.S. are grappling with how to fix broken, narrow sidewalks or build missing ones. Los Angeles, dubbed 'the city of broken sidewalks' in an article by late parking guru Donald Shoup, has roughly 9,300 miles of sidewalk and no clear plan for fixing them. With the car-free 2028 Summer Olympics looming, the pressure is on to find a solution. 'If people break their hips or knees or wrists falling on a broken sidewalk — what terrible advertising this is for L.A.,' Shoup told Next City last year. 'Paris is a city of light, and L.A. will be the city of deferred maintenance.' In 2010, Angelenos with disabilities sued the city of L.A., alleging that broken and inaccessible sidewalks were a violation of the American with Disabilities Act. In 2016, as part of the Willits settlement, the city agreed to spend about $1.4 billion over 30 years to fix sidewalks, with priority given to requests submitted by residents with mobility disabilities. Despite the big dollar commitment, most of L.A.'s broken sidewalks remain broken, and experts say that the Willits case has largely failed to improve the pedestrian experience. People with mobility disabilities still wait up to a decade for sidewalk repairs. ' Less than 1% [of sidewalks] have been fixed,' says Jessica Meaney, executive director of Investing in Place, a local nonprofit transportation advocacy group. 'So the lawsuit that people thought was going to solve a lot of problems — well, it's solving some important ones, but at an incredibly slow pace.' Broken sidewalks don't just impede mobility for pedestrians; they also come with a huge price tag. L.A. spends millions every year on liability lawsuits caused by broken public infrastructure. Who should be responsible for sidewalks? It turns out that pre-2022 Denver is not an outlier: Most major cities expect property owners to foot the bill for fixing sidewalks. Laura Messier, a researcher in public health and public spaces at the University of Southern California, compared sidewalk policies in the 30 most populated cities in the U.S. To her surprise, she found 77% require the adjacent property owner to fix the sidewalk. This presents a problem. 'Cities are not enforcing that responsibility because they don't want resident blowback,' says Messier. 'And so it seems like there's sort of this collective wishful thinking that somehow this critical infrastructure will take care of itself.' Taking on responsibility for sidewalks means Denver is treating sidewalks as part of its overall transportation system. To fund repairs, most property owners are charged an annual fee of $150. Income-qualified residents can apply for a rebate. As part of Willits, L.A. has taken on responsibility for sidewalk repairs with the goal of releasing responsibility back to property owners, 'fix and release.' However, the pace of repairs is so slow that it's unclear how the city will achieve this goal. With over 9,000 miles of sidewalk, L.A. is fixing roughly 15 miles and adding 50 curb ramps per year. 'Fear of liability, in my mind, is driving every decision cities are making about sidewalks,' Messier says. It's a Sisyphean system: On the hook for millions per year in liability lawsuits, L.A. is also legally required to spend millions per year on a sidewalk program that has yet to make a dent in a backlog of repairs that might prevent future liability lawsuits. As Meaney has stressed, Los Angeles doesn't have a sidewalk program — it has the Willits settlement. And Willits doesn't address street infrastructure as a whole, says Messier. Instead, it mandates that the city spend a certain amount per year on sidewalks. The consequences can prove counterintuitive. 'I think that the city's finding that some of the places that they've fixed are already getting damaged again from tree roots,' Messier says, noting that sidewalks and street trees are managed separately. 'We're spending all this money, but it doesn't really feel like we're going to end up with long-term improvement.' The root of the issue is that cities have prioritized infrastructure for cars over all other possible uses of public space. If cities treated streets more holistically, they might be able to prioritize trees and sidewalks. 'Where we might have excess lane capacity for cars, we might be able to widen parkways, widen sidewalks and really solve the tree root-sidewalk conflict so that it doesn't become a problem in the future,' says Messier. Are sidewalks having a moment? There are signs that L.A. residents want better streets for people outside of cars. Last March, voters passed Measure HLA, mandating the city follow its own mobility plan when it repaves streets. Since the measure passed, progress on more bike, pedestrian and bus infrastructure has been slow. In October, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass signed Executive Directive No. 9 to streamline public infrastructure improvements and create a multi-year plan for projects. Would L.A. property owners be willing to pay a sidewalk fee? Maybe. 'Let's look at Denver's revenue generating [program], let's look at a bond, let's look at a sales tax,' says Meaney. 'Both inside and outside City Hall, people are like, 'Wait, this is so broken, let's fix it.''
Forbes
16-04-2025
- Automotive
- Forbes
The High Cost Of Free Parking: Why Cities Must Rethink Curb Space
In cities across America, parking is often perceived as an entitlement—a public good that should be abundant and free. But as urban planners and economists have long argued, 'free' parking isn't free at all. Instead, it imposes hidden costs on cities, businesses, and residents, shaping transportation choices in ways that undermine public safety and economic vitality. The legacy of free or underpriced parking dates back to post-World War II planning policies that prioritized automobile use over other forms of transportation. Today, many cities still require developers to provide excessive off-street parking, while curbside spaces are often priced far below their true market value. The result? More congestion, increased emissions, and inefficient land use that prioritizes cars over people. Donald Shoup, the UCLA economist and author of The High Cost of Free Parking, famously argued that underpriced parking distorts urban economies. It encourages car dependency, contributes to traffic as drivers circle for spots, and disincentivizes investment in public transit, biking, and walkable neighborhoods. Worse, these hidden costs are passed on to everyone—including those who don't drive—in the form of higher housing prices, reduced public space, and increased pollution. Cars parked in a major city While free parking may feel like a convenience, its costs ripple through the economy in ways that few recognize. Consider these realities: Many cities worldwide have taken bold steps to reform their parking policies, using pricing as a tool to manage demand and encourage sustainable transportation. In London and Singapore, congestion pricing has helped reduce traffic and fund public transit improvements. In Europe, over 250 cities have implemented Low Emission Zones (LEZs) that charge or restrict the most polluting vehicles. These policies recognize that curb space is a valuable asset and should be managed accordingly. Closer to home, San Francisco's SFpark program uses demand-based pricing to adjust parking fees in real time. The results? Reduced congestion, improved parking availability, and increased transit use. Other cities, including Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have also begun experimenting with dynamic pricing models to optimize curb space. To create more livable, sustainable cities, we must rethink how parking is priced and managed. Here's what policymakers should prioritize: The high cost of free parking is an economic and environmental burden that cities can no longer afford to ignore. As urban populations grow and climate challenges mount, we must shift toward policies that prioritize efficient, equitable, and sustainable use of curb space. By pricing parking appropriately, eliminating outdated minimums, and reinvesting in smarter mobility solutions, cities can create more vibrant, walkable, and resilient communities. The question isn't whether we can afford to charge for parking—it's whether we can afford not to.
New York Times
19-02-2025
- General
- New York Times
Donald Shoup, Who Made Parking an Entertaining Subject, Dies at 86
Donald Shoup, a professor of urban studies whose provocative and occasionally amusing 734-page treatise on the economics of parking sparked reforms in thousands of cities, helping reduce traffic, create green space and make cities more walkable, died on Feb. 6 at his home in Los Angeles. He was 86. The cause was a stroke, his wife, Pat Shoup, said. Professor Shoup was an intellectual hero to urbanists. His disciples called themselves the Shoupistas — their Facebook group has more than 8,100 followers — and referred to their bearded guru as Shoup Dogg, after the rapper Snoop Dogg. Professor Shoup, who bicycled to his office at the University of California, Los Angeles, in khaki pants and a tweed sport coat, did not rap. But he managed to take a dry subject — parking — and turn it into an entertaining one. 'Many of us,' he liked to remind conference audiences, 'were probably even conceived in a parked car.' In his 2005 book, 'The High Cost of Free Parking,' a hefty tome that legions of urban studies students have lugged around to the detriment of their spinal cords, Professor Shoup explained the problems that city planners created by providing too much free or underpriced parking after automobile use soared in the early 20th century. He liked to quote George Costanza, the bald, neurotic 'Seinfeld' character: 'My father didn't pay for parking, my mother, my brother, nobody. It's like going to a prostitute. Why should I pay when, if I apply myself, maybe I can get it for free?' To Professor Shoup, that quote showed the economic calculus that drivers make: Instead of paying for a pricey garage, they are tempted to keep looking and waiting for an elusive (and cheaper) spot to become magically available — wasting energy and creating traffic and air pollution in the process. 'The curb spaces are like fish in the ocean: a parking space belongs to anyone who occupies it, but if you leave it, you lose it,' Professor Shoup wrote. 'Where all the curb spaces are occupied, turnover leads to a few vacancies over time, but drivers must cruise to find a space vacated by a departing motorist.' As cities grew, free or inexpensive parking was regarded as an inalienable right. City planners mandated that developers provide off-street parking for residential and commercial projects, incentivizing driving over other forms of transportation. It was a waste of valuable land, Professor Shoup noted, that contributed to urban sprawl. He drew on the board game Monopoly to illustrate his point. 'In Monopoly, free parking is only one space out of 40 on the board,' he wrote. 'If Monopoly were played under our current zoning laws, however, free parking would be on every space. Parking lots might cover half of Marvin Gardens, and Park Place would have underground parking.' The problem would mushroom. 'Free parking would push buildings farther apart, increase the cost of houses and hotels, and permit fewer of them to be built at all,' Professor Shoup wrote. 'Smart players would soon leave Atlantic City behind and move to a larger board that allowed them to build on cheaper land in the suburbs. Connecticut Avenue would not be redeveloped with hotels, the railroads would disappear and every piece on the board would move more slowly.' He proposed a three-pronged solution: Ban off-street parking requirements, letting developers (and market forces) dictate how much parking to supply; employ dynamic pricing for on-street parking, raising prices when demand is highest; and spend the resulting increased revenue from meters to spruce up sidewalks, encouraging more walking. 'The High Cost of Free Parking' was widely praised, especially for turning parking into a riveting read. 'When I told a group of transportation colleagues about the book, they expressed both disbelief and sympathy — how could there be that much to say about parking, let alone anything interesting?' Susan Handy, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis, wrote in The Journal of Planning Education and Research. 'But as Shoup adeptly shows, parking is interesting, and it is hugely important.' The book captured the attention of progressive policymakers and grass roots activists, who began pushing for cities big and small to adopt Professor Shoup's ideas. 'Don is treated in some places like Einstein, like he has discovered the theory of relativity,' Bonnie Nelson, a founder of Nelson\Nygaard, a transportation consulting firm, told The Los Angeles Times in 2010. More than 3,000 cities have adopted some or all of Professor Shoup's recommendations, according to the Parking Reform Network, a nonprofit that champions the book's ideas. 'The size and breadth of this book gives it authority,' Tony Jordan, the group's founder, said in an interview. 'You can literally stand on it when you make an argument.' Donald Curran Shoup was born on Aug. 24, 1938, in Long Beach, Calif. His parents were Francis Elliott Shoup Jr., a captain in the U.S. Navy, and Muriel Shoup, who ran the home. When Donald was 2, the Shoups moved to Honolulu, where his father was stationed. 'The only thing I'm famous for is that I was living in Honolulu when Pearl Harbor was attacked,' he recalled in an interview with the American Planning Association. 'So I think everything has been very calm ever since. If you start with Pearl Harbor as your first memory, life seems very easy.' He studied electrical engineering and economics at Yale and then did his graduate studies there in economics, receiving his doctorate in 1968. After teaching at the University of Michigan, he joined U.C.L.A.'s department of urban planning in 1974. Back then, parking wasn't exactly in vogue as a scholarly subject. He covered his office door with cartoons about it. 'Because most academics cannot imagine anything less interesting to study than parking, I was a bottom feeder with little competition for many years,' Professor Shoup wrote in 'The High Cost of Free Parking.' 'But there is a lot of food down there, and many other academics have joined in what is now almost a feeding frenzy.' He was married for 59 years to Ms. Shoup, who helped edit his writing. She is his only immediate survivor. Professor Shoup loved being called Shoup Dogg, she recalled, and even used the nickname as his website address. 'He would do absolutely anything,' she said, 'to get people to pay attention to the important issue of parking.'
