Two weeks ago, the Antiplanner responded with dismay to George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen’s op ed against free parking. This led to a variety of responses in the blogosphere, none of which address the Antiplanner’s point. Instead, they all argue against the minimum-parking requirements found in many zoning regulations.
In particular, Cowen himself points to a study that found that Los Angeles’ minimum-parking requirements forced some developers to build more parking than they would have without such requirements. But Cowen’s op ed was titled, “Free Parking Comes at a Price,” not “Minimum-Parking Requirements Come at a Price.” The op ed was based on a book by Donald Shoup titled “The High Cost of Free Parking,” not “The High Cost of Minimum-Parking Requirements.”
Nothing the Antiplanner wrote defended minimum-parking requirements. Instead, the Antiplanner pointed out that, even without such requirements, most businesses still provide free parking for their employees and customers. It is one thing to oppose minimum-parking requirements as an unnecessary form of government regulation. It is another thing to favor government regulation mandating that private businesses charge for parking.
That certainly seems to be what Cowen favors. His article concluded, “if we’re going to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels,” then “imposing higher fees for parking may make further changes more palatable by helping to promote higher residential density and support for mass transit.” There are a lot of fallacies in those statements. Will higher residential density significantly reduce use of fossil fuels? Probably not. Will support for mass transit significantly reduce use of fossil fuels? Probably not. Even if you believe we excessively use fossil fuels, do indirect tools such as “imposing parking fees” make sense when more direct tools are available? Certainly not.
With great effectiveness and functions on the condition, Kamagra has succeeded to order generic cialis grab higher success rate,. And it’s only people proved to be mentally insane that would http://mouthsofthesouth.com/viagra-7115 viagra on line be on permanent medication. The cost for advertisement purpose for the cheap cialis http://mouthsofthesouth.com/cialis-2983 is very easy. Doctor appointments are essential buy cialis generic to maintaining your health and identifying hidden risk factors before they manifest into more serious conditions or diseases.
Claims that parking is subsidized would carry a lot more weight if 5 percent of the people drove and the other 95 percent had to pay 75 percent of the cost. Those are, in fact, the proportions for transit (less than 5 percent of American workers take transit to work but fares cover less than 25 percent of transit costs), which Cowen wants to promote. With driving, the numbers are practically reversed: discounting air travel, more than 90 percent of travel is by car and auto drivers pay more than 90 percent of the costs of driving.
I suspect someone has made the case for minimum-parking requirements: without such requirements, businesses might try to externalize some of their costs by letting someone else provide parking for them. But let’s ignore that. Cities should get rid of zoning codes that have minimum-parking requirements. (Cities should get rid of zoning codes period.) Cities should charge market rates for on-street parking and any publicly owned off-street parking. But even if these things happen, private businesses will still provide free parking to their employees and customers in many areas–in fact, practically everywhere outside of old downtowns.
Note: My previous post on this subject quoted Cowen quoting Shoup saying, “On average [in the U.S.] a new parking space has cost 17 percent more than a new car.” I commented that this was ridiculous. Someone pointed out in an email that Shoup actually estimates that there are four parking spaces for every car, and the combined cost of those spaces is more than the average car. Without searching Shoup’s 733-page tome to check his arithmetic, I am still not certain why this is important.
Most people who buy homes want room to park their cars. People also need room to park at work and elsewhere. Should we only have one bathroom for every four houses because the average bathroom is in use only a couple of hours every day? Is it a waste that almost every home in the country has a kitchen, when there are plenty of kitchens in restaurants (not to mention many workplaces) as well? Then why is it a waste that homes, as well as offices, stores, and other businesses, have parking?
The Autoplanner; I suspect someone has made the case for minimum-parking requirements: without such requirements, businesses might try to externalize some of their costs by letting someone else provide parking for them. But let’s ignore that. Cities should get rid of zoning codes that have minimum-parking requirements. (Cities should get rid of zoning codes period.)
THWM: I’m surprised you haven’t brought up the proposed mosque a stones throw away from the World Trade Center site by now.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> Most people who buy homes want room to park their cars.
And this seems to be true even in many urban areas.
> People also need room to park at work and elsewhere.
Including at rail transit stations.
In the Washington, D.C. region, WMATA is one of the largest (maybe the largest) operators of parking lots.
> Should we only have one bathroom for every four houses
> because the average bathroom is in use only a couple of
> hours every day? Is it a waste that almost every home in
> the country has a kitchen, when there are plenty of
> kitchens in restaurants (not to mention many workplaces)
> as well? Then why is it a waste that homes, as well as
> offices, stores, and other businesses, have parking?
With some exceptions, I suspect that mortgage lenders are going to be reluctant to underwrite loans for properties which lack parking.
It is not as easy to rent out a space to a business if you do not have parking. A business space with no parking takes a special business to choose that space.
For some reason businesses like to have parking for loading and unloading(UPS), employees and customers. Parking lots also give a business a place for garbage.
I know I have skipped going to a business and put it off until another time because there was no parking.
Parking = customers with money
It’s spelled Tyler Cowen
One thing that makes economics interesting is that you can look at things from different perspectives. When you add in the real estate costs of parking spaces to the cost of cars, it does greatly increase the combined costs.
Another perspective is from the business owner, who generally sees free parking as paying for itself in that offering free parking generates more profit than the cost. A third perspectives is from the home builder, who now is often building three and four car garages in addition to a paved driveway. I am sure there are other perspectives too.
I’m really not sure who the Antiplanner is arguing against.
Antiplanner – “It is another thing to favor government regulation mandating that private businesses charge for parking.”
Who is arguing for this?
Cowen’s article says: “Yet the law is allocating this land rather than letting market prices adjudicate whether we need more parking, and whether that parking should be free.” I don’t see that he ever says the law should mandate higher parking prices on private land or caps on private parking. If you want to find people to argue about parking maximums with I’m sure you can find them. But Shoup and Cowen don’t stand among them.
So the only issue The Antiplanner has with the book or the article is the author’s choice to use a catchy title? If the book was titled: “The High Cost of Minimum-Parking Requirements”, nobody would buy it. That’s simple economics.
Antiplanner – “I suspect someone has made the case for minimum-parking requirements: without such requirements, businesses might try to externalize some of their costs by letting someone else provide parking for them. ”
This is exactly what Shoup’s “733-page tome” primarily focuses on: how to prevent businesses from externalizing costs without resorting to minimum parking requirements. The Antiplanner should really consider reading the book. Or at least the first few chapters: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Chapter1.pdf.
@craig “I know I have skipped going to a business and put it off until another time because there was no parking.” – Shoup sympathizes with that problem; he argues that people shouldn’t have to waste time circling looking for a spot in public parking because a spot should always be available. Public parking spots should be priced so a block or lot is always 85% full, but a few spots are open for newcomers so you don’t have to circle six times to find a spot. As far as parking = customers: if your lot, or on-street parking, is full then you can, by definition, not get any more customers out of lowering the parking rate. Conversely you can’t lose any customers by raising the rate, until you’ve got a few empty spaces. If those spaces represent higher turnover rather than one car hogging the space all day (perhaps an employee) then you are probably gaining customers by have a few empty spaces most of the time; ask any retailer; he doesn’t want his lot completely full or people will keep going past, like you said.
Free parking encourages car use.
In Bath, the lack of parking has led to a very low proportion of commuter journeys being made by car. I walk to and from work.
Here in Abu Dhabi, the road system is more car friendly (3 lanes in each direction, typically). But a lack of parking means that I don’t drive – I use taxis.
The expensive car parking space – one more expensive than a car – is likely to be one in a parking basement. Parking basements are very expensive. Even a surface level parking space is quite expensive, given the land cost, and the business that could have been done on the land & which is now foregone.
Antiplanner is bothered by this, because it undermines his claim that roads are paid for almost entirely out of user fees.
‘LRT Now’ has this article, highlighting car subsidies as a precursor to asking for more subsidies themselves (bless).
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_000010.htm
teb wrote:
“Public parking spots should be priced so a block or lot is always 85% full, but a few spots are open for newcomers so you don’t have to circle six times to find a spot.”
That’s what is supposed to be happening in Abu Dhabi. Under the old, chaotic parking system, people parked for free where they liked. Now, they are charged, and this is supposed to free up some parking spaces. Unfortunately, they have such a parking problem, that parking spaces are still tight, and circling the parking lots is still required.
With some exceptions, I suspect that mortgage lenders are going to be reluctant to underwrite loans for properties which lack parking.
I agree. Why should they subsidize on-street parking? Let the taxpayers do that!
Nonetheless, Randal makes us chuckle:
Um, everyone has made that case. That is part of the issue today. The min requirements come from the ITE, and if you pay for a study you can toss them and make the case for less parking.
It would be nice, Randal, if you could speak to the issue when you argue for something, including the comical businesses might [sic] try to externalize some of their costs by letting someone else provide parking for them. Funny! Businesses certainly will try to let someone else pay the freight for parking! What a hoot!
Really now.
DS
Dan asserted:
> I agree. Why should they subsidize on-street parking?
> Let the taxpayers do that!
What part of the world do you inhabit, Dan?
In the part of the world where I live, new streets are (with some, and relatively rare, exceptions) built by the developers of new homes, or private, off-street parking is constructed. The developers (or, more-correctly, the purchasers of the new homes) fund the streets even if they are eventually to be conveyed to a government agency.
And many streets in subdivisions platted since about 1980 in many parts of Maryland and Virginia remain in the hands of private homeowners associations or condominium associations forever.
In the part of the world where I live, new streets are (with some, and relatively rare, exceptions) built by the developers of new homes, or private, off-street parking is constructed.
Good for that part of the world. I’m happy for it. It is not the same everywhere.
I’m watching, these past few weeks, my tax money do a cr*ppy chip seal on several street classifications on ~6-8-10 lane-miles on this side of town. And the contractor hired in my stead not bother to flag or direct traffic. ‘Swonderful.
My particular neighborhood bonded for the infra and we’re on the hook for many more years (yet suffering thru the same cr*ppy contractor), which means that per house our costs are higher (no economy of scale) but the prices are a little closer to reality. Which may explain the high foreclosure rate, not sure.
The two previous states in which I was a resident, CA and WA, rarely did what you describe.
BTW, right-pricing land and infra naturally drives more developers toward density, correcting past market distortions. I’m a pricing-properly kinda guy so I’m not arguing against what CPZ describes, I’m merely pointing out places are different. Again.
DS
I would like to see you cite specific examples where higher residential density increased the amount of vehicle miles traveled in order to support your claim that “Will higher residential density significantly reduce use of fossil fuels? Probably not.” Also, to your argument of cost of a car vs. the cost to build a parking space, I have seen the lengthly e-mail Professor Shoup wrote to you detailing his math to clarify this example. I surely hope that you will post his comments and respond to them publicly. Lastly, as a student of Professor Shoup’s, I can assure you that the problem is not that offices, stores, etc, are suppling parking. The problem is that they are forced to supply extreme amounts of excess parking spaces at a cost to the consumer. This can be frustrating if you are in fact, a bicycle commuter such as myself who is paying higher costs for goods in order to provide EXCESS parking spaces.
Mad, surely you know that zero evidence is forthcoming. And you should know by now that the min parking requirement is inconvenient to ideological arguments, and will continue to be ignored or minimized.
DS