NY Times: Free Parking Comes at a Price

[marmar]

Free Parking Comes at a Price
By TYLER COWEN

Published: August 14, 2010


IN our society, cars receive considerable attention and study — whether the subject is buying and selling them, the traffic congestion they cause or the dangerous things we do in them, like texting and talking on cellphones while driving. But we haven’t devoted nearly enough thought to how cars are usually deployed — namely, by sitting in parking spaces.

Is this a serious economic issue? In fact, it’s a classic tale of how subsidies, use restrictions, and price controls can steer an economy in wrong directions. Car owners may not want to hear this, but we have way too much free parking.

Higher charges for parking spaces would limit our trips by car. That would cut emissions, alleviate congestion and, as a side effect, improve land use. Donald C. Shoup, professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, has made this idea a cause, as presented in his 733-page book, “The High Cost of Free Parking.”

Many suburbanites take free parking for granted, whether it’s in the lot of a big-box store or at home in the driveway. Yet the presence of so many parking spaces is an artifact of regulation and serves as a powerful subsidy to cars and car trips. Legally mandated parking lowers the market price of parking spaces, often to zero. Zoning and development restrictions often require a large number of parking spaces attached to a store or a smaller number of spaces attached to a house or apartment block. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=1&hpw

[Taitertots]

1. Parking fees are horribly regressive while burdening only the poor and the infirm

As opposed to progressive taxation used to support effective public transportation.

[SocialistLez]

7. "as opposed to progressive taxation to support effective public transportation."

Exactly!!

[taterguy]

11. Free parking forces people too poor to afford cars to subsidize motorists

So I guess the question is which "Little man" are you looking out for.

[Taitertots]

12. Charging for parking only makes more people too poor to afford cars

So which "Little man"(your words, not mine) is going to be made better off? We can help those who have not without burdening those who barely have anything.

We could use progressive taxation to build effective public transportation. Does that satisfy your blood lust against the people who rely on cars?

[taterguy]

15. I have no blood-lust for cars, just a desire for transportation policy to be rational and pragmatic

Parking spaces cost money.

Ever have to repave your driveway? It'll set you back a couple grand, depending on where you live.

So why should people who choose not to use parking places pay for those who do?

As for public transportation, don't get me started.

It's not a panacea. Mass transit only works when there are masses of people. Our lack of effective public transportation is largely due to our lifestyles, not economic policy. We like to spread out. We like to go places when we want, not according to schedule.

It would be fun if we had actual data for this argument. Who knows which approach would have the biggest impact on emission reduction, which is the goal. My gut and my biases lead me to believe that charging for parking would do more than so-called "effective" public transportation, but I could be wrong.

YMMV.

[Taitertots]

18. Charging for parking is neither rational or pragmatic

All it will do is punish the most already marginalized members of society.

"Who knows which approach would have the biggest impact on emission reduction, which is the goal."
The ends don't justify the means. All that would do is hurt the poor and the infirm, while having a minimal effect on emissions.

"So why should people who choose not to use parking places pay for those who do?"
Why should I have to pay for handicapped ramps that I don't use?
Why should I have to pay for roads I don't use?
Why should I have to pay for police, fire departments, public libraries, courts, health care, welfare....I am not currently using.
Because for a society to function the best interests of the many outweigh the selfishness of the few.

If you want to reduce emissions you should look for policies that make low emissions lifestyles more attainable. Not policies that spite people for not being able to embrace your lifestyle.

[taterguy]

20. Increase the price of something and its usage will decrease.

Please let me know if you're privy to some information about basic economics that I'm unaware of.

And of course I disagree that policies that promote bad behavior are in the best interests of the many.

Lots of people like to drink beer. Should that be free?

[Taitertots]

21. Your title is misleading

Usage will decrease only among the people with a marginal ability to pay (working poor) or a marginal interest in usage. You obviously don't know basic economics if you can't understand that. If you had taken basic economics you would also understand that driving is very inelastic to price changes so paid parking will have a very limited effect.

Bad Behaviors? Having children, infirm family, or working in a place generally inaccessible by public transport are not bad behaviors. The day there is a valid alternative to driving for millions of Americans is the day driving would be "bad behavior".

All this would do is punish the poor by restricting their freedom of movement, their ability to support themselves and their families, and pushing personal transportation further away from the people too poor to afford it. All this would do is punish the infirm for lacking the ability to use other means of transport.

Free beer? Liking something and having it be in your best interest are two vastly different things. A lot of people don't like getting a colonoscopy, but free colonoscopies would be in the best interest of the masses.

[KittyWampus]

19. Nonsense. The poor generally take public transportation. If pubic transit simultaneously got funding

and schedules were improved, it's a step in the right direction.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. not this shit again...

If another wave of urban riots doesn't empty out the cities of this country the assholes who want to make harassing motorists official public policy will. Americans drive cars - get over it.

[marmar]

3. Actually, I think this is targeting the suburbs more than cities....

..... so the hooligan suburbanites will do the emptying, I suppose.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. Because suburban municiple governments are going to tie their own noose

I totally see Orange County embracing this...

[LostinVA]

16. Actually, you are mistaken about people leaving the cities

The trend is now for "flight" FROM suburbs and INTO cities. I myself downtown in decently-sized city, and it is vibrant and bustling, and every day another rundown home is bought so it can be rehabbed, and not always by some rich Yuppie.

I am able to drive my car only one day a week. I know alot of people can't do that, but quite a few can do that and choose not to. I know people who work two miles from work, on sidewalked streets on a bus route, and still drive to work.

At the very least, the government needs to subsidize electric vehicles, and make them very affordable for people under a certain income. Most trips in cars are commuter distance, which is perfect for an electric vehicle.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. people aren't leaving the cities right now,

But it won't take much to reverse the trend, be it rioting or just making it too fucking annoying to live there.

[unblock]

5. i'm amazed

that someone found 733 pages to write on this topic.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. As if the local malls did not have enough problems

yeah, let's charge for parking there and watch the stores really empty out.

When Mr. D.had his own business and had to visit customers in SF, he tacked on an extra 20% for parking inconvenience.
And got it.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. I can see it now. Almost every business in my area would close.

We have no reliable public transportation. We have everything spread out. There are no sidewalks in any of the shopping areas. Without a car, you are an invalid here. I have no grocery store within 1 mile of my house. There is a convenience store. There is no pharmacy. There is no hardware store. So, let's do it---and we can finally just shut the lights out here.

[lostnfound]

9. I hate policies that increase the annoyance factor. nt

[taterguy]

10. Free parking means more cars which means more annoyance to cyclists

So which policy do you hate?

(And yes, I'm well aware that some folks find cyclists annoying)

[lostnfound]

13. Wish it wasn't 100 degrees F here, and that my son didn't go to

school on the other side of town. I don't find cyclists annoying at all. I would gladly vote for cycle route funding etc. and bike lanes like in Holland.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. and the ratio of cyclists to cars is what? 250:1, 500:1?

Cyclists are a much greater irritation to motorists than vice-versa, one asshole playing in the street can tie up traffic for blocks.