Parking Reform

From the annals of underappreciated phenomena comes . . . parking regulations! Pretty much nobody has any idea what the parking regulations in their town/county/etc. are and nobody gives any real thought to the impact of parking rules on the world. But suffice it to say that, as with any regulatory scheme, a regulatory scheme designed to produce a world where parking is both ubiquitous and extremely cheap actually has enormous costs associated with it.

It seems that a professor named Donald Shoup has written a book called The High Cost of Free Parking spelling these costs out. Rob Goodspeed has an excellent precis.

Comments

This is a really stupid idea, at least as presented by Goodspeed. Worse than trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 25, 2008 1:11 PM

Which of his ideas do you think are "stupid"?

Posted by Rob Goodspeed | February 25, 2008 1:33 PM

As long as there are viable alternatives to mandatory parking, this is a fantastic idea, in fact. I just received my copy on Saturday, but I've studied with one of Shoup's colleagues, and the untapped potential for actually treating parking as something of value rather than a freebie is very high. The trick is providing an alternative and convincing them it's a good idea.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 25, 2008 1:36 PM

I've been pushing this book for a while now. Parking is probably one of the most important issues related to the much more widely discussed concerns involving sprawl and urban development.

Since the notion of congestion charges (as London has instituted) has gotten greater traction, it is worth noting that simply raising the cost of parking would accomplish essentially the same goal but without the massive headaches (and infrastructure)required to implement congestion tolls.

Posted by McKingford | February 25, 2008 1:38 PM

One of my favorite parking reform ideas is the notion that you should price street parking in commercial areas so that about 15% of the spaces are open during peak hours. That way drivers coming by to run a quick errand will have a spot available that they can use, while those spending a longer time in the area --- say, eating dinner or seeing a movie --- will use a structure or lot with hourly rates, or use an alternative mode of transportation.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 25, 2008 1:57 PM

It's a great book.

The reaction from conservative blogs over last weeks posts by Ezra Klein about increasing density shows how strong the opposition is to reducing the negative externalities of suburban-style development.

Aside from showing how harmful free parking is Shoup shows how municipalities can create an advocacy group for the fair price of parking. Since none of us want to pay for something we can get for free- and no politician will make us- Shoup empowers local communities by creating districts that can keep that parking revenue for streetscape improvements. Suddenly businesses in Palo Alto, for instance, see the value in fair priced parking: benches, cleaner streets, and repaired sidewalks.

Posted by Preston | February 25, 2008 2:00 PM

I don't have time to go into it, but since Goodspeed bothered to drop by I should say something. Not my forte, but isn't the curb thing just regressive taxation, discriminating who can shop downtown by income? And if you're going to allow big box retailers at all (I'd love them gone, along with getting my pony), people do have to get the shit home. So you're trying to take away the retailer's choice on how much parking they want to provide. Good luck with that.

Consider that shallow opposition that you can beat down.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 25, 2008 2:29 PM

Nolaboyd-

As far as it being a regressive tax- currently the price of parking bundled and hidden in the price of everything you purchase even for people who don't drive (more likely to be poor).

Currently in American downtowns free street parking imposes a tax on our time: We drive for 15 minutes looking for a free spot rather than spend between 5 or 20 dollars (depending where you are)on the less convenient lots nearby. Yet sometimes each of us might be willing to pay the extra cost of convenient parking (if we are carpooling, if we are in a hurry, if it's just for a minute).

Lastly, Shoup advocates that this money be directed into directions (streetscape improvements) that impact the conditions of those who choose not to drive (more likely to be poor).

Putting a price tag on a commodity (which indeed already comes at a cost) allows us choice: do we pay it or do we avoid it. Currently we have no choice- we all pay.

Posted by Preston | February 25, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm doing some research on the effect of parking regulations on development decisions. The difficulty is that its very hard to seperate out the effect of parking minimums from other density decreasing provisions (setbacks, floor area ratio requirements,etc.) My intuition is that some of these others may have more impact than parking. So though Shoup has a point, he is being a little myopic about which zoning regulations matter.

Posted by Economist | February 25, 2008 3:27 PM

What do you mean "impact"? On what?

Posted by Preston | February 25, 2008 3:32 PM

Nolaboyd-

Higher street parking may or may not be regressive, depending on the income profile of drivers and the amount of fuel and time wasted looking for a space. We know car ownership (and the number cars owned) is strongly correlated with income, meaning the most vulnerable households have the most limited options and rely more on public transit. In Washington, D.C. 37% of households had no cars at all in 200 Census. Most of those households are poor. In the end I'm not sure how all these factors would shake out.

Also, I think you are confused about what is proposed. Shoup suggests eliminating the requirements and letting developers decide how many to provide, not prohibiting their construction. Similarly, I suggest turning the current requirements into maximums.

Posted by Rob Goodspeed | February 25, 2008 3:49 PM

Shoup is the most important policy analyst in America today. The High Cost Of Free Parking is a wonderful book accessible to educated activists and experienced policy analysts in any field.

Parking and the externalities it illuminates in the planning, zoning, traffic, and transportation systems shapes our lives more than any other pervasive urban infrastructure from the 20th century. It even drives petroleum consumption and therefore wars in certain parts of the world.

New ideas grow slowly but the tools built from them end up having much more effect than the transient politics of the day. Shoup is active in inventing ways to use markets and smarter regulations to improve how we live and make it practical for politics to drive the change. Some of the articles in the book are devoted to practical organization for change.

Posted by Brian | February 25, 2008 4:25 PM

Wow, I was totally confused...and ignorant of that crazy zoning law. I had no idea that the number of spaces was in the hands of the zoning and not the developers. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

I'm not usually a grouchy first commenter, but I'm glad I was.

Posted by nolaboyd | February 26, 2008 1:34 AM

Out here, in the middle of nowhere--ahem--Northern New York, you're not allowed to park on the side of the road after 2AM within town limits... Luckily town limits only span about a half mile.

How's this cute lil theory affect all the country bumpkins??

Posted by bubba | February 26, 2008 2:35 AM