Nothing keeps people dependent on cars as much as free parking. It is by far the largest subsidy of the automobile. Although many people think of subsidies as government payments that come from taxes, most automobile subsidies are not, and thereby escape the scrutiny given to tax expenditures. Basically, a subsidy is any cost of providing for a transportation mode that isn’t paid by the user in direct relation to use.

In fact, it is primarily this parking subsidy that leads to tax subsidies for transit. Transit systems can’t provide sufficient service to be attractive where parking is free, because the market can’t develop, and so the tax subsidies are needed to shore up the system. And for those really short trips where walking or cycling would be effective substitutes, the parking subsidy is an even larger contribution to the cost of a car trip.

Free curb parking is so ubiquitous in Sonoma County that it would be futile to suggest charging for it everywhere. But there are a few places where charging would make a lot of sense. They are easy to recognize: the locations where people are frustrated by a lack of curb parking for quick errands.

Yet even where curb parking is hard to find, few residents or merchants would ask for parking to be metered. Instead, they typically promote additional off-street parking. Yet when this is provided, at great cost, the problem is seldom solved, because people are really looking for curb parking, and don’t consider off-street parking a satisfactory substitute.

People resist curb metering because it is basically an additional tax on themselves or their customers or guests. But what if were instead a source of income?

That’s what curb metering became in Pasadena’s Old Town:" Parking meters were installed in Old Pasadena to provide an effective tool to encourage drivers to keep parking as short as possible. This allows other drivers to use these convenient, short-term parking spaces close to retail shops, restaurants and other businesses.

Revenue collected from the parking meters is used to maintain the streets, sidewalks and alleys in Old Pasadena. Soon you will notice new signs, lighting, pedestrian-friendly alleys and other improvements to restore Old Pasadena's historic beauty paid for with parking meter revenues." (From the Pasadena website)

These "Parking Benefit Districts" could be established anywhere there is a "parking problem", not just in Pasadena, and not just in commercial areas. People in downtown neighborhoods impacted by spillover commercial parking might be inclined toward generosity if they knew the revenues collected could be used for neighborhood improvements. They could even exempt their own cars if they wanted.

Donald Shoup gives greater detail on "Parking Benefit Districts" in the second half of a paper he wrote in 1995. Click here for the second half.

"FREE" PARKING

Parking isn't free; it is just paid for by everybody but the driver. It is a subsidy twice as
costly as providing everyone with free gasoline. The source of the subsidy is the equirement for minimum parking imposed on building construction. Why should a major cost of the automobile infrastructure be imposed on developers, but nothing for transit infrastructure?

Part or all of the requirement could be replaced by in-lieu parking fees. For each space required but not built, the developer would pay a fee based on the cost of constructing a space. In-lieu fees are equivalent to impact fees. If the in-lieu fees are set to equal the cost of constructing the parking they are embarrassingly large, far larger than all other usual fees combined.

When viewed from this perspective, another option becomes obvious; reduce the need for parking. There is no difference in result between paying the cost of providing a parking space and paying the cost of eliminating the need for a space.

Eco-passes, which are transit passes provided to all employees by an employer, are priced according to their likelihood of use, typically far less than an individually purchased transit pass. It is far cheaper for the employer to pay for eco-passes than to pay parking in-lieu fees, to achieve the same parking space result.

This is the chain of thought in Donald Shoup's paper "Instead of Free Parking". The paper was published in two lengths. The short version appeared in the ITS publication Access. Download PDF file. (176 kb).

The longer version - entitled "In Lieu of Required Parking", contains more detail and lots of classic Shoup jokes. I converted the original PDF image file to a standard PDF file, preserving the content and an approximation of the format. Download PDF file. (773 kb).