If You Don't Build It, They Will Take Another Route

What happened when Washington, DC built a new baseball stadium without "adequate" parking for all the fans to drive their cares to the game? Well, baseball fans decided to stay home take the Metro instead and everything is as it should be. No objection, of course, if entrepreneurs want to build parking facilities somewhere in the Navy Yard vicinity and charge people market rates to park there, but there's a general lesson to be learned here.

When you mandate vast acres of un-priced or underpriced parking, that leads to lots of driving. But the space used up by all that parking is still a real resource -- nothing comes "for free." When you don't make those mandates, the world doesn't end and people don't just spend eternity driving in circles looking for spaces. Instead, a combination of market-priced parking and alternatives to driving can meet people's needs.

Comments

all the fans to drive their cares to the game

I always leave my cares at home when I'm going out to the old ball park.

Play Ball!

Posted by Tiparillo | April 3, 2008 4:35 PM

If parking isn't free, then why is there a "Free Parking" space on my Monopoly board?

Posted by DSG | April 3, 2008 4:36 PM

I think the new stadium will work out in the end, but they've only played one home game there thus far. It still remains to be seen whether the lack of parking will depress attendance when the park is no longer brand new.

Posted by Gabriel | April 3, 2008 4:42 PM

I've always thought public transit and major sporting events were a natural fit: once you get close enough to the stadium, it is sort of like a moving tailgate party.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 4:46 PM

It's communism when the public funds a baseball standium without parking! Communism I tell you!

Posted by Happy Conservative | April 3, 2008 4:48 PM

What DTM said. Drinking is the #1 reason to take public transit to and from sporting events. In general, the less we have to drive, the more we can drink, which is something I can totally get behind.

Posted by Matt D | April 3, 2008 4:52 PM

Matt - is it true that Democrats in DC wear the blue, away caps and Republicans wear the red, home caps?

Posted by blah | April 3, 2008 4:53 PM

they've only played one home game there thus far

Exactly. Talk about a small sample size!

I mean, they sold out opening night of the season - indeed, opening night of the new ballpark - and we can conclude that the lack of parking has no effect on attendance?

Please.

This is like proclaiming the Iraq War a victory on March 21, 2003.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 4:53 PM

I'm really cool because I'm gonna bike to the new stadium. (Then I'll drive a hybrid and smell my own farts because I'm that progressive, ok not really)

MY,

Please wax poetically about free-market parking/transportation and the cluster fuck, which is, trying to get FedEx Field.

Posted by nattyb | April 3, 2008 4:55 PM

I've always thought public transit and major sporting events were a natural fit

It seems to fit in Charlotte, with its new light rail line.

Most stadiums in Europe don't have large on-site parking areas. The average Premier League ground -- even newer grounds built away from their historic urban sites -- has a smaller lot than the average grocery store in the US.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 3, 2008 4:55 PM

Parking mandates are one of the single worst impacts on land use and sprawl, so kudos to Washington here (although this is faint praise given the general boondoggle of a publicly financed stadium costing upwards of $3/4B.

The other thing about parking at a stadium is that it distorts just how far you end up walking (ie. damn far). I remember going to a Lion playoff game at the old Silverdome on one of the coldest days ever, and we walked so far from the lot to the stadium that one of our troop ended up with frostbitten toes.

Here in Toronto I don't think our downtown stadium has any parking affiliated with the stadium. There are a handful of smaller private lots around, but you'd be basically nuts to do anything other than take transit.

Posted by McKingford | April 3, 2008 4:57 PM

Lack of parking has not depressed the Cubs attendance. In fact, you're pretty much known as an idiot (or tourist) if you drive and pay the parking rates of businesses or homeowners in the neighborhood who rent out their available space.

Posted by Julene | April 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Admittedly, Yglesias has extrapolated a lot from a few games.

But anybody who is a Yankee fan here in NYC knows that the notion that there must be absurd amounts of parking to draw fans, is a ludicrous fabrication.

There isn't anywhere near the "necessary" parking, anywhere near the "necessary" highway capacity, anywhere near the "necessary" alternate road routes to get to Yankee Stadium (around gametime the roads are the parking lot, for several miles)...

And we sell out all the time. You can barely pack onto Subways around game-time because everybody rides the Subway to the Stadium.

Kudos to Yglesias, keep track going forward, but I'm sure this will prove accurate given time.

This country is so backward regarding mass transit: Waking up as gasoline edges toward $4.00 to the widespread lack of mass transit is really quite silly, but it's exactly what's going to happen.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | April 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Shorter Al: people hate the metro more than they like baseball.

I think a premature declaration of victory is probably warranted in this case. If people aren't willing to take the metro to an urban stadium and insist on driving, then it strikes me that it would be better to shut the whole thing down, anyway. More reasonably, the persistence of the Verizon Center downtown with a much more cramped parking situation already attests to the success of a non-parking-focused sports arena.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 5:03 PM

I mean, they sold out opening night of the season - indeed, opening night of the new ballpark - and we can conclude that the lack of parking has no effect on attendance?

Al naturally omits the biggest draw that day... President Bush. I was thrilled to hear the crowds saying in unison "Boooosh."

Posted by Happy Conservative | April 3, 2008 5:19 PM

in Dallas, we like to build shit where the trains don't go. But it does go downtown, although there is nothing to do there.

Posted by MP | April 3, 2008 5:20 PM

PacBellSBCAT&T Park has virtually no parking, and handled 40,000 people every night back in the days of steroid-fueled glory. All the foot traffic makes the surrounding neighborhood lively and inviting, and new businesses in the area are thriving. Meanwhile, Candlestick and the Oakland Coliseum are surrounded by acres of parking, and not a single business. You'd think city planners would have figured this out a long time ago.

Posted by Alan in SF | April 3, 2008 5:24 PM

I was thrilled to hear the crowds saying in unison "Boooosh."

That's what I heard too.

In any case, I'm not saying that people won't take Metro to the park - I think they will. I just think Matthew is claiming "Mission Accomplished" a bit to early.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 5:24 PM

The difference being that Verizon Center is within easy walking distance of stations that serve every line on the system. Whereas the new Nats park is served only by the Green Line, which for an overwhelmingly white fan base is strictly a spur. Virtually everyone leaving the park by Matro will be changing either at L'Enfant Plaza or Gallery Place.

It looks like the solution for the able-bodied fan going to Virginia is going to be one-mile walk to Capitol South -- upstream from L'Enfant. Did anybody here try that on Sunday?

Posted by roac | April 3, 2008 5:26 PM

When you mandate vast acres of un-priced or underpriced parking

BTW, was there a push to mandate "un-priced or underpriced" parking around the Nationals stadium? My experience has always been that parking around sporting events is never "un-priced or underpriced", but, rather, is market priced or overpriced.

Posted by Al | April 3, 2008 5:28 PM

If people aren't willing to take the metro to an urban stadium and insist on driving, then it strikes me that it would be better to shut the whole thing down, anyway.

Well, yeah... this is the heart of the matter. Having a $750m sunk cost, it is really important to get butts into the seats to try and pay for it. It can't just be written off as a loser, as though it were a great thought experiment.

The question is, what share of attendance will fall off if parking isn't available? I wouldn't share Matt's confidence that the answer is none or little, nor would I take the Yankees(!) as a good contrary example.

Verizon? That's a little better, but it is near the center of town, and drawing 16k to a Caps or Wizards game is not the same as getting 40k out to a baseball game. The mass transit logjam is going to be worse -- more people, and fewer things to do before/after the game to help dissipate the crowd. (The Metro trip to RFK SUCKED for this very reason.)

This really is going to turn out to be a boondoggle. If parking helped ease the pain, it would be well worth considering.

Posted by Brad L | April 3, 2008 5:29 PM

I live in Wrigleyville. I very, very firmly believe that all stadia should have ADEQUATE PARKING. Also, people from the suburbs should not be allowed to drive in Chicago. Especially old people.

Posted by Seth | April 3, 2008 5:33 PM

My experience has always been that parking around sporting events is never "un-priced or underpriced", but, rather, is market priced or overpriced.

It may be "market priced" for the concessioner that runs the lot, but dollars for doughnuts that guy isn't covering the cost for that acreage, and isn't made to.

Posted by cmholm | April 3, 2008 5:36 PM

People who think we need more parking because of the "mass transit logjam" crack me up. Have you driven on the SE/SW freeway in an evening? The place is a parking lot on normal days, never mind game days. Unless the Metro actually broke down, it would be preferable. They just need to run a lot more green line trains on game days than they normally do--which shouldn't be that hard since they normally run only ever 6-10 minutes during evening rush hour to begin with.

Posted by sara | April 3, 2008 5:47 PM

There is a difference b/w a stadium, which can be located next to a metro stop and every random restaurant or store in a public transport lacking city. In a big city, a significant amount of traffic comes from people looking for parking spots. That's messed up. It's better to require businesses to provide parking for their customers unless clear alternatives exist.

Posted by mpowell | April 3, 2008 5:50 PM

People who think we need more parking because of the "mass transit logjam" crack me up.

I can understand skepticism at whether parking might help ease the strain, but the scare quote? Are you suggesting that the ride to and from the park is basically a comfortable one? I haven't been to the new park, but if this is the case, it's certainly different than how it was at RFK, which would really surprise me, given bigger crowds and less parking.

Posted by Brad L | April 3, 2008 5:56 PM

It looks like the solution for the able-bodied fan going to Virginia is going to be one-mile walk to Capitol South -- upstream from L'Enfant. Did anybody here try that on Sunday?

I did it after the Saturday exhibition game versus Baltimore. I wasn't the only one. Not even close.

MY's larger point about the Cassandras and the lack of parking is right: the idea is to develop the entire area. By this time next year 1/2 Street will be going and over the next few years the area will resemble DTM's "moving cocktail party." Maybe enough so that Matthew "Baseball sucks" Yglesias will be lured to a game and get in touch with his inner Cuban.

Posted by Roberto | April 3, 2008 5:56 PM

Did someone really try to pull that one over on taxpayers?

I work in Boston, live in a 'burb in the far western hinterlands. I take the commuter rail into work. On days I go to Fenway, I either walk (45 min) or take the green line to Kenmore, as do most folk. After the game, the late commuter rail waits at Yawkey station until the game ends, to take me back home.

You can park for sucker rates, if that's your fancy. But aside from the high prices of getting in (sucker rates, and I am one in that respect), going to see the BoSox at home is a dream for public transport users.

Posted by rlgordonma | April 3, 2008 6:04 PM

Did someone really try to pull that one over on taxpayers?

Yep. The owners of the Washington Nationals have been trying to suck the DC government for everything they've got. The entire enterprise is 100% funded by the government. I think DC managed to fit in some clause to get the team to be responsible for cost overruns, but somehow that didn't include the costs of extra parking, which the city was going to be completely on the hook for.

Posted by Tyro | April 3, 2008 6:35 PM

MY's larger point about the Cassandras...

Please stop torturing the Cassandra story to death. The whole point of the story is that, although no one would listen to her, Cassandra was right.

Scott Ritter = Cassandra. Jonathan Schell = Cassandra. Robert Scheer = Cassandra.

The people prophesying doom over insufficient parking at Nationals Park aren't Cassandras; they're just wrong.

Posted by ML | April 3, 2008 7:23 PM

rlgordonma: Did someone really try to pull that one over on taxpayers?

Tyro: Yep. The owners of the Washington Nationals have been trying to suck the DC government for everything they've got. The entire enterprise is 100% funded by the government.

Which is why LA isn't going to have an NFL team any time soon. The taxpayers aren't that desperate/stupid. If the owners want luxury boxes that badly, they can pony up their own billion.

Posted by cmholm | April 3, 2008 8:06 PM

I love taking public transportation to Dodger Stadium. It ends about a half mile from the stadium, and one enjoys a nice steep uphill walk next to the freeway and invigorating traipse across the giant parking lot. One of my very favorite things to do. Though, if you don't get out of the stadium early enough, public transport much shut down on you (it shuts down really early). LA is run so, so intelligently.

Posted by MattD | April 3, 2008 10:31 PM

In a big city, a significant amount of traffic comes from people looking for parking spots. That's messed up. It's better to require businesses to provide parking for their customers unless clear alternatives exist.

I think the actual evidence is that more parking space generates more traffic. This is kind of counterintuitive, but it's the policy that San Francisco has followed for years, and it sure seems to work here. It's virtually impossible to build parking garages or even small parking lots in residential business districts, and the result is that our residential business districts are lively, vibrant places with very little traffic.

Here's an urban planning discussion of the policy:
http://www.spur.org/documents/990601_article_03.shtm

Posted by Alan in SF | April 3, 2008 11:02 PM

I'm not sure what public transport system by Dodger Stadium MattD thinks shuts down early; the Sunset Boulevard bus runs 24 hours a day, like most of the buses on the main streets of Los Angeles. Of course, nobody thinks they have to actually know anything about public transportation in L.A. in order to talk about it. There's no reason you couldn't have a bus going up to Dodger Stadium so long as someone is willing to subsidize it; it wouldn't pay for itself. Neither the city nor the Dodgers wish to do so, and the Dodgers led the league in attendance without it. I wonder how many people would taking DC's Metro to the ballpark if it wasn't subsidized, and they had to pay the actual cost?

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 4, 2008 3:50 AM

Admittedly I don't go to baseball games, but do mid-week, mid-day games actually draw a full stadium? Seems to me whenever I see clips on the news, etc. most of the stadium is empty.

Is it really smart to build acres of parking for only those games that might draw full attendance during baseball season when many games won't ever draw full attendance and the stadium is mostly fallow for the rest of the year. Sure, some of the parking may be used by commuters, but that area ain't around much that commuters commute to and those that do, would rather not get on Metro just to get to their parking space and then get in their car and drive.

I know they had planned to build lots but I think they couldn't do it fast enough and the cost was too much, or some such. Seems developers wanted to build high-end apartments/condos and make more money then a parking garage would get them.

Posted by ET | April 4, 2008 8:21 AM

Re ET

Just for the information of Mr. ET, the US DOT headquarters is located right next to the ballpark.

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 9:06 AM

'BTW, was there a push to mandate "un-priced or underpriced" parking around the Nationals stadium? My experience has always been that parking around sporting events is never "un-priced or underpriced", but, rather, is market priced or overpriced.'

Fed Ex field has overpriced parking, but that's only because Dan Snyder has set up a kill-zone around the perimeter allowing his snipers to shoot anyone trying to get in without parking in his lot or taking one of his shuttle busses.

Posted by Njorl | April 4, 2008 9:37 AM

I just had the pleasure of attending an FC Barcelona soccer game in Barcelona last week. The stadium holds 96,000 and it was nearly full. As far as I could see there was virtually no parking whatsoever in the area around the stadium. Everyone took the subway, which is incredibly good -- indeed puts DC's metro to shame. Getting in and out was remarkably smooth. Trains run every four or five minutes like clock work (all the time)and it would never occur to people that they would need to drive to the stadium.

When I was a kid I used to go to Boston Celtics games at the old Boston Garden coing in from the north shore suburbs -- yes, it was a sweltering hell hole, but both the subway and commuter trains stopped directly there. You never needed a car and as a young teen I was able to go to games without needing a parent to drive.

Mass transit good -- good mass transit, even better.

Posted by Sir Charles | April 4, 2008 10:49 AM

SLC - I know I eat at the 5 Guys (yum yum) all the time. But they have parking as part of their structure. and all of the DC government buildings and office/condo/apartments down there have parking as part of their structure as well. I just don't know if the spill over would be enough to justify the cost of building a parking structure.

Posted by ET | April 4, 2008 10:54 AM

The San Diego Padres baseball park also doesn't have adequate parking for everyone who wants to attend the game. It's even a city where most people never take public transit. The one exception is to Padres games because it's far easier to take the trolley. There is typically excess parking due to the heavy trolley use, but it's difficult to get in and out of downtown anyways by car.

"I wonder how many people would taking DC's Metro to the ballpark if it wasn't subsidized, and they had to pay the actual cost?"

Let's not forget that driving is heavily subsidized by the government. If every road was a toll road to pay for its maintenance/building you might see a difference in driving habits.

Posted by JordanT | April 4, 2008 10:55 AM

"do mid-week, mid-day games actually draw a full stadium? Seems to me whenever I see clips on the news, etc. most of the stadium is empty."

It varies wildly. Some teams which are historically consistently good and/or in desirable markets sell out pretty much every game. The Red Sox are an example of this. If you want to see a game at Fenway, you will have to pay scalper prices to get in.

A team in a pennant race will draw during the week. Once school lets out that will increase midweek attendance, though this is more true in the minors. The new stadium is a bit of a wild card. The Orioles sold out for several years with the new ballpark, but it was revolutionary at the time. The Nationals park is by all accounts very nice, but nothing people haven't seen already.

So with the Nationals you have the novelty of the new park, but this is balanced by the Nationals almost certainly sucking. Their good start notwithstanding, the smart money has them finishing fourth in their division. My guess is that games against premium teams and games on weekends will sell out, but you won't have much trouble getting a ticket to a Wednesday game against the Pirates.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | April 4, 2008 11:15 AM

Wait; people really opposed this idea? Is no one aware of what the stations by Fenway look like circa a Red Sox game? Hell, public transit is even utilized in Baltimore for O's games, and white people are like deathly afraid of the Baltimore metro for any other purpose.

Posted by Zach | April 4, 2008 11:20 AM

Jordan T's comment is a perfect example of the double standard that's applied in these discussions. Highways and parking lots are subsidized by people who use them, through gasoline taxes and parking fees. Fixed rail boondoggles are subsidized by people who don't use them, often in the false hope that they will reduce traffic (hasn't happened yet). Transit advocates wish to commandeer the taxes and registration fees paid by drivers to subsidize mass transit systems.

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 4, 2008 12:19 PM

Zach: "...white people are like deathly afraid of the Baltimore metro..."

This is untrue. I commute to work on the Baltimore metro. There are many middle class white people on it during the morning and evening rush. You won't see us on buses, but that is another matter.

Robert Fiore: "Highways and parking lots are subsidized by people who use them, through gasoline taxes and parking fees. Fixed rail boondoggles are subsidized by people who don't use them, often in the false hope that they will reduce traffic (hasn't happened yet)."

Both assertions are highly improbable. Highways and parking lots are partially subsized through gas taxes and parking fees, but hardly completely. This is obvious in places with public parking cheaper than nearby private parking. As for highways, even if state and federal highways were completely paid for through gas taxes, local governments build the roads that get you to the highway.

Rail doesn't reduce traffic? I have a split commute: half is a drive to the rail station, half on the train. Were there no train I would drive the entire distance. Ergo the train reduces traffic on that half by my car. I am not alone on the train.

It may be true that traffic is not reduced inasmuch as the capacity of the highways is still maxed out, but that just means that the railway has reduced the need to expand highway capacity. Which is another way of saying that the railway subsidizes the drivers. It is sufficiently indirect that anyone who so chooses can pretend it isn't there: this is the way Republicans like their lifestyle subsidies.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | April 4, 2008 1:18 PM

Re Robert Fiore

"Highways and parking lots are subsidized by people who use them, through gasoline taxes and parking fees. "

Mr. Fiore has joined the 100% wrong club. For his information, 1/2 the federal gas tax is spent on the interstate system while only 1/4 of the miles driven is on that system. Sounds like a 50% subsidy to me.

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 5:05 PM

Re: Fiore

Parking lots are also not subsidized by the people who use them. A suburban office complex usually doesn't charge for parking. That means the company is spending money on parking that could go to salaries, but instead goes into parking whether an employees uses it or not.

Many big stores in urban areas validate parking, subsidizing parkers. A carton of milk at Giant in Friendship Heights costs the same amount whether your park or not, but Giant is getting less from the parkers than the walkers or Metro riders, meaning their prices have to be a bit higher to cover this, even though everyone pays the higher prices.

Posted by David Alpert, Greater Greater Washington | April 4, 2008 6:48 PM

SLC's first problem is he can't count. Even if his reasoning were correct, I'd be 50% wrong, not 100% wrong. His second problem is that he can't reason. But then, when you maintain a double standard, reason is the first thing that has to go out the window. Regardless of how they're apportioned, the highway funds from gas taxes are by definition paid by people who use the highways. How the funds are apportioned is decided by their elected representatives. The majority of transit funding on the other hand comes from people who never use public transit.

DC is an interesting case. They built a fixed rail system that is potentially useful (unlike the on in Los Angeles) which people don't use (much like the one in Los Angeles). Now they're getting some use out of it by forcing people to use it. Whether building a public stadium boondoggle to justify your public transit boondoggle is the best use of public funds is the question.

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 4, 2008 6:52 PM

Oh, and David Alpert, my mistake: Parking lots are also subsidized by businesses whose customers use them. Of course, this subsidy ultimately comes from the customers who patronize the store, so it's essentially a distinction without a difference. If the subsidy from the business exceeds the amount of additional business free parking generates, then it's a bad deal for them. When people take subsidized public transit (i.e., the only kind of public transit there is) to the business, the business gets the benefit of the public subsidy, of which it pays a much smaller proportion.

The problem isn't that I'm any smarter than you people, it's that you're basing your arguments on false premises. Believe me, you're ducks in a barrel.

Posted by Robert Fiore | April 4, 2008 7:03 PM