Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDown with Free Parking!
In the multi-level parking garage that sits directly across the street from where Im typing these words, in the heart of Manhattans business-filled Flatiron District, an hour of parking will set you back $27.03. Im told by the friendly attendant there that he almost always has spaces available. Still, if youre willing to drive around for a while and hunt for a hard-to-find metered spot on the street, you might be able to zoom your way into one just as its previous occupant is zooming out of it.To celebrate your accomplishment, you really should treat yourself to lunch. Id recommend the house-ground wagyu beef cheeseburger with triple crème Brie and caramelized onion aioli at Alison Eighteen, a nearby restaurant though at $17, it doesnt come cheap. Still, with the amount of money you just saved by parking at a $3.50-per-hour spot on the street, youll have no trouble covering the lunch bill. And while youre savoring your $23.53 in savings, as well as the last of your frites (they dont call them fries when youre paying this much for them), ponder this question: What, do you suppose, is the fair market value of a one-hour parking spot in this part of town?
......
In one 15-block commercial district that he studied in Los Angeles, Shoup estimated that drivers trolling for a cheap or free curbside spot were responsible for an extra 950,000 vehicle miles driven per year equivalent to 38 trips around the earth, or four trips to the moon. Although the average search may have taken only a few minutes and covered only half a mile, the aggregate impact that all these rationally self-interested economic actors were having on energy consumption and climate was staggering: together they burned an extra 47,000 gallons of gasoline, and released an extra 730 tons of carbon dioxide into the earths atmosphere, over the course of a single year.All in one relatively small commercial area. Feel free to extrapolate, if you think you can stomach the implications.
.......
Shoup has studied the issue long enough to know which way things are likely to turn out; you can probably guess what his prediction is regarding the effect of free Sunday parking on merchants and restaurateurs bottom lines. (Heres a hint: Free curb parking in a congested city gives a small, temporary benefit to a few drivers who happen to be lucky on a particular day, but it imposes large social costs on everyone else every day.) Its just another way of pointing out, as Shoup often does, that theres really no such thing as free parking. When we as individuals pay nothing (or next to nothing) for it, parking becomes what economists call a negative externality, where the public cost of a particular item or service actually exceeds its private cost. If you dont pay for parking your car, somebody else has to pay for it, Shoup has said. And that somebody is everybody.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/09/down_with_free_parking_partner/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 1090 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Down with Free Parking! (Original Post)
Nye Bevan
Jun 2013
OP
taterguy
(29,582 posts)1. Are you some shopping mall shill?
In my town those are the major beneficiaries of making it difficult to park downtown.
YMMV
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)2. Charging the fair market value for parking would actually make it *easier* to park downtown (nt)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)4. The invisible hand would make sure of that
taterguy
(29,582 posts)7. Which downtown?
And it also depends on how you calculate fair market value.
In my town, if you have to pay to park, you just go somewhere else.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)3. I just don't go downtown.
One of the few places I go to has metered parking on the street outside but the city stops charging after 6 PM-which is about the time I go there.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)5. Matt Yglesias writes a lot about this
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/06/07/urban_parking_wars.html
One of the main issues that leads people to oppose new real estate development in their neighborhood is parking. Access to street parking, in particular. Many cities massively over-allocate scarce public space to automobiles with the vast stretches of land set aside as on-street car storage being a key culprit. Incumbent residents enjoy access to that resource and fear that newcomers will compete with them for access to it. The traditional remedy to this concern has been growth-and-environment-killing minimum parking mandates, but in DC at least the hip new idea is to prevent residents of new developments from obtaining street parking permits.
That's better than regulatory mandates, but I do think there's an even better way. That would be to simply stop handing out new street permits altogether and turn the existing permits into tradeable private property owned by the people who hold them. Creating that kind of windfall for incumbent parkers would be moderately unfair, but precisely because it's unfair it would actually accomplish the desired political objective of halting parking-related objections to new development. For incumbent permit-holders, development would no longer degrade the value of their parking permits. Since the total number of permits would be capped, there'd be no scarcity of street parking. And since the permits would be tradable property, new residents would actually increase the market price. Now everybody's happy.
That's better than regulatory mandates, but I do think there's an even better way. That would be to simply stop handing out new street permits altogether and turn the existing permits into tradeable private property owned by the people who hold them. Creating that kind of windfall for incumbent parkers would be moderately unfair, but precisely because it's unfair it would actually accomplish the desired political objective of halting parking-related objections to new development. For incumbent permit-holders, development would no longer degrade the value of their parking permits. Since the total number of permits would be capped, there'd be no scarcity of street parking. And since the permits would be tradable property, new residents would actually increase the market price. Now everybody's happy.
wercal
(1,370 posts)6. I don't trust their study
That gallon usage would yield 470 tons co2...they are off by nearly a factor of two on that calculation...what else did they get wrong?