Abstract:
The New Urbanists assume that if you build a village center or Main Street-style retail businesses in the middle of a residential neighborhood, it will, among other things, reduce the level of automobile usage. Based on the claim of reduced automobile travel, advocates suggest that parking requirements and transportation impact fees should similarly be reduced. Although it would be ideal to test these claims using New Urbanist development, current developments lack well-established retail businesses. Thus, this study considers these claims of the New Urbanists using six prototypical traditional shopping districts in the Oakland-Berkeley subarea of the San Francisco Bay Area. Each of these districts is surrounded by residential areas of moderately high density [between 5.3 and 8.5 persons per hectare (13-21 persons per gross acre)] and middle-class residents. These shopping areas vary in scale and mix of businesses covering the range of sizes and types espoused by the New Urbanists. The trip generation rates and parking needs for each of these prototypical shopping areas are calculated and compared with ITE-based rates for both an average hour and a daily rate. Based on these comparisons, a conclusion is reached that the claims of the New Urbanists for reduced parking and transportation fees cannot be wholeheartedly supported if the needs of the neighborhood are to be considered. Although many customers walk to these shopping areas, the trips by modes other than automobile are offset by a higher overall level of activity in the shopping area.
