It might be the most frequently asked question about housing development – especially proposals that do not include any on-site parking. “Where will they park?”

It seems like a reasonable question: if people moving to the building have cars, those cars will have to go somewhere. And if the development doesn’t create new parking, those cars will have to fight for existing parking spaces, worsening traffic and making it harder for existing drivers and newcomers alike to find parking. 

But the problem with the idea that less parking will lead to more traffic is quite simple: it assumes that just as many people with cars will move into the building whether it has ample parking, no parking, or anywhere between. How do we know that isn’t true?

Nationally, about 8% of households do not have a car. In downtown Jersey City, though, nearly half of households do not have a car. Why such a big difference? The cost of owning a car here is much higher than it is in most other places in the country. Why it’s much higher is a topic for another post. But the broad principle here is that if you make something easier and cheaper for someone to do, they will do it more often. If you make it harder and more expensive, they will do it less often. 

When I think about things like this, I find it helpful to consider an example that takes the logic to its extreme. Suppose that the original misconception is correct, and just as many people will bring a car to a new building no matter the circumstances. Consider a hypothetical new apartment building with a very unique pricing structure: they will rent you an apartment for $1 per month if you have a car and for $1,000,000 per month if you do not have a car. How many units do you think would be filled by those without cars? Conversely, if they charged $1 per month for non-drivers and $1,000,000 per month for drivers, do you think the same number – let alone any – car owners would rent at this building?

The point of this example is to demonstrate that whether or not occupants of a new building are likely to have cars depends. It depends on many factors, but one of the primary factors is parking. All else being equal, prospective renters with cars are likely to prefer buildings with their own parking. This may sound obvious, but it therefore follows that they are less likely to move to buildings without parking, freeing up units for those renters who do not own a car. 

Don’t believe me? Developers are nearly always within their rights to build parking as part of any housing development; the reason they don’t is that they know when they can fill a building with people who do not own cars! This is part of why downtown Jersey City has such a low rate of car ownership. When you design your buildings to accommodate more cars, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy; you will get more cars (and the added traffic that comes with them). When you design your buildings – and indeed, your city – to accommodate more people and fewer cars, you get fewer cars. And fewer cars are a win-win for existing car owners and those without cars alike! It means less competition with other car owners for spots at the grocery store or the gym, less traffic on the roads, and fewer crashes and safer streets for all.