BLOG: "The High Cost of Free Parking"
Sam Adams
Today I am attending the three-day 10th Rail-Volution Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. The 
Conference founded by then-City Commissioner and now U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer seeks to address nearly "every aspect of building liable communities with transit."
This morning, I attended a seminar given by UCLA Professor Donald Shoup on, "The High Cost of Free Parking." He has just published a book with the same title.
I want you to benefit from his point of view and I would welcome your thoughts on the issues he raises.
Shoup says that all transportation systems have three basic elements:
- Vehicles;
- Rights of way;
- Terminal Capacity.
For example, trains (the vehicle) have tracks (the right of way) and stations (terminal capacity). Airplanes (the vehicle) have the sky (right of way) and airports (terminal capacity). Cars (the 
vehicle) have roads (right of way) and parking spaces (terminal capacity).
Shoup says that automobile travel is unusual in three ways:
- It requires enormous terminal capacity (several parking spaces per car);
- Drivers often do not pay for this terminal capacity (he estimates that cars are parked 90 percent of their life and that they park free for 95 percent of automobile trips);
- The cost of parking is often shifted out of the transportation sector and into the price for other goods or services.
Two common mistakes in parking policy in the U.S. are prevalent, says Shoup:
- City codes require lots of off-street parking;
- On-street curb parking is free.
Off street parking requirements set forth by local governments are based on "no principles and no analysis," says Shoup. He says the American Planning Association's standards list 652 different parking requirements that are,"made up," and that, "these are the standards most cities use and they are a pretentious facade." He pointed to specific parking standards like two parking spots per barber.
Shoup says that these off-street parking requirements inhibit the reuse and better use of older buildings where it is not possible to add more off site parking spaces. He proposes that these off-site parking requirements should be removed.
At the same time, Shoup says on-street curb parking must:
- Charge market rates for curb parking. He defines market rate as the parking price that will yield 85 percent occupancy. "High enough so there are not a lot of vacant spaces, but enough vacate spaces so people don't have to circle the blocks repeatedly to find a space," says Shoup.
- Money generated from charging for on-street parking must stay in and be spent by those in the neighborhoods in which it is generated.
Shoup describes the problems of the Old Pasadena business district in Los Angles, California. "Employees and shop owners parked at the curb. Merchants opposed meters because they feared customers would stay away. Old Pasadena had no money for public infrastructure,"says Shoup.
Shoup says Old Pasadena enacted three parking solutions:
- Municipal parking structures with ground floor retail;
- Reduced off-street parking requirements;
- Parking meters with the revenue returned to the neighborhood to pay for public improvements.
The merchants agreed to the plan once they understood the revenues would be theirs to spend on public improvements. Also, off-street parking requirements were reduced 25 percent. A "Parking Credit Program" was created to allow businesses to pay the City a modest fee when adding off-street parking was not possible.
Since these parking policy changes, the business growth in Old Pasadena has exceeded its neighboring business districts.
"The value of the parking spot to increase business of a commercial district is a untapped resource," says Shoup. "Old Pasadena learned that using parking revenues to add street trees, clean the sidewalks and promote their business district added to their bottom line -- because they stopped giving parking away -- even when free parking was available in the business district next door."
Posted by Sam Adams on September 8, 2005
(14) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Jobs & Economy, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
3 days talking about how much to charge for parking is a valuable use of your time. Parking rates are critical to the viability of business in downtown Portland. Unless we do this right all the businesses will move to free parking places like Vancouver, LakeOswego and Beaverton.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 9, 2005 6:00:57 AM
Steve,
I read you posts throughout Sam's site and on other local sites. I respect the conservative point of view you consistently offer but disagree with it often. You are not required to do so, but I wish you would think more about/research your comments more before you type them down. With more effort on your part, I think you posts could really make a conservative contribution to the actual substance of the discussions posted on this site.
I like this website because it is clear that Sam is trying to host a thoughtful discussion of many issues.
Sam's post relaying the scholarship of a UCLA professor on the issue of parking is food for thought because it shows a neighborhood business district doing exactly opposite of your post.
Many Portland business districts are strugling with the parking/public infrastruture issue. I work in one.
You assume free parking is the key but offer nothing meaningful to the conversation.
Respectfully,
Tom
Posted by: Tom Johnson | Sep 9, 2005 10:33:01 AM
Tom - I don't assume anything, but I have friends who have retail businesses (one formerly downtown) and parking is an issue discouraging shoppers because:
1) CoP tries to get everyone to ride transit, which almost no shoppers use
2) Parking costs
These people can go to WashSq or Clack get free parking and the same stores. Yet we are talking about raising parking fees even more to put more trees in which really dont draw shoppers.
I appreciate he is a college professor, but he deals in the theoretical side of things which sometimes don't jive with practice. In addition to which he probably sees shoppers as a commodity that he knows exactly what they want.
Why not ask the shopping developers, or even - god forbid - frequent shoppers - who have some skin in the game what do they need to draw shoppers to downtown instead of spending money expanding (WashSq) or building new spaces (Bridgeport/Tanasbourne) outside of Portland?
You are right, by being flip I am not doing my point of view justice. However, just because someone wants to see business in downtown Portland succeed does not make them conservative, which should be a non-issue in this context.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 9, 2005 10:52:47 AM
Steve,
Thanks, better. But, not everything about parking is about downtown. I work in the NE Fremont area and we have free parking. It is not working well. Most of the spots are taken up by employees or shop owners for long periods of time each day.
Our customers are complaining about access to parking. We do not have land to add off-street parking lots. I am looking at all options. I looked Shoup up on the web. His perspectives are based on case studies, not just on the superifical or theory. I don't know if I agree with him yet but I like the fact that this issue is being raised and discussed as a city.
I don't assume free parking is always good or bad. I think is depends on the circumstances of each situation.
Tom
Posted by: Tom Johnson | Sep 9, 2005 12:04:31 PM
i think that parking is an issue because for people who drive its hard when you try to make ends meet with money problems and stuff like that.....
Posted by: ENFORCER | Sep 9, 2005 2:27:44 PM
Maybe employees should park in the residential areas (while the residents are away at work) and charge for curb parking during the daytime (8-5 or something, like in downtown). Limit it to 1-2 hours for parking, and it should free up the parking in front of the stores along the street to customers only.
Posted by: Justin | Sep 9, 2005 3:43:15 PM
Great post Sam!
I don't know at this point whether or not I would support an increase in parking fees in Portland but I'm glad to see you examining what other people say (and have data to back up) what they feel is important in creating a thriving community. Thoughtful exploration of potentially unpopular ideas that may have real rewards, and your willingness to talk about them openly, demonstrates that we have elected a public servant that truly has the public's best interests in mind.
Posted by: Larry | Sep 9, 2005 8:02:10 PM
Heyla Sam,
I actually do think it's interesting to read the statistics about parking, and they're useful to identify areas where there MIGHT be revenue possibilities. If ALL of oregon or the portland metro area were to adhere to the same ideas, these concepts might actually prove beneficial. However, one of the necessities of this is to provide some alternative method of transit; so that parking costs become a tax on "sin" (a la the extra taxes on alcohol or tobacco) or unwillingness to use other methods.
On the flip side, I'm one of the thousands of residents more or less forced into a car, because I can't safely use a bike to get to work, nor does public transit efficiently service my commute. Since I'm already in a vehicle most days, I know that my responce to the ongoing increases in expense of parking downtown has been to avoid it entirely. As someone pointed out up above, why would I go pay to park to visit a store downtown that I can visit in either a real mall or a strip mall without paying to park? It's not that I don't want to be green, or patronize the downtown stores but if I have to pay for gas, and I don't have any efficient alternative to my vehicle, I fail to see why I should be excited to pay to park as well, as long as I have options.
Perhaps a mid-line approach would be to put significant multi-story parking structures 'near' shopping districts. Leave those structures as "free" parking; where users would have to walk to browse an shopping area and have curb side parking be a fee based service, so the actual charge is a "convenience" charge. That both provides additional revenue, reduces actual volume of land required to be dedicated to parking AND encourages activity in a country beset by sloth. :-)
Posted by: Shawna | Sep 19, 2005 6:30:19 PM
I fully support aggressive parking rates.
However, we do have some current problems with on street parking in residential neighborhoods such as The Pearl. There are very few parking options in the Pearl for residents. I take mass transit as much as possible, yet I still have a car that needs to go somewhere.
Over the past 5 years, all free curb parking has become metered. Initially there were at least some long term meters. Now those are gone and all meters are short term.
If one is not fortunate enough to live in a million dollar condo with expensive underground parking there are no options. A parking space came on the market last month for $100,000!
Agressive short term rates with market based, monthly permits would be an ideal solution.
Posted by: Scott | May 30, 2006 3:41:37 PM
I think it's a darn shame that "almost no shoppers use public transit."
I do. I don't drive, and am so glad.
It's real sad that so many people avoid public transit. I have no idea why people don't like it -- it's fun, convenient, and cheap. I used to drive, but it became very expensive.
I like studying maps and learning the routes. I find this a lot better way to spend my time, than "down time" in the shop. I get so much done on public transit, when I feel like it. I balance my check book, read various newspapers and magagizines, books; and do embroidery. And I like listening to people talk, sometimes play with the little kids, josh with the bigger ones, talk with the bicyclists about how I wish I still could bicycle except for my osteoarthritis, etc. Today on the MAX train, I was sorta an intermediary between my favorite street musician, a Mexican trumpeter, and a woman from Micronesia! Neither could understand the other, and for some reason both could understand me, even though I speak poor Spanish and don't even know what language/s are spoken in Micronesia. Fun!
See all the rolling luggages? That's where we put our shopping! - You all are missing such a good time! :-))
Posted by: Marian | May 30, 2006 6:21:31 PM
Metered parking in downtown and neighborhood shopping districts pushes people with cars to shop and go to the theaters at malls with their sprawling, but free lots.
Generally I find that people who write on this blog do not represent the average citizen who drives a car most places, whether they feel good about it or not.
The current electronic parking meters are wasteful of paper and cause more litter to accumulate on our streets. They are wasteful and cumbersome for those of us putting our money into them as we cannot drop another coin in as we pass back by our cars while doing errands downtown. They also don't give you that lucky-its-my-day,friendly feeling when you discover a meter with time left on it, either.
Posted by: C. Anderson | May 30, 2006 10:18:18 PM
Clearly, a parking space has value, because the land it occupies has value. Giving it away is a public subsidy that changes market forces. I see two opportunities, at both ends.
At the origin end, curb parking should be taxed, especially where the streets are filled. Perhaps have a quarterly/monthly/annual licence to park a car on the street. Pricing could vary by zone, depending on crowding. This would help discourage junkers on the street, and would motivate people get rid of their spare cars, to get them back into useful circulation, or be recycled. Flexcars might have a city-wide license within their registration. Even a very low fee would clear out some cars.
At the destination end, more thought should be given to mixed-mode transit. For example, I frequently dragon-boat, park on the street at the east end of the Hawthorne Bridge, where there's a huge vacant lot, wasted. (There's also a 24-hour pay lot, mostly vacant. Its hours should be no different than meter hours.) I walk 10 minutes to the Riverplace Marina. The bike traffic across the bridge is high. PDC owns another small vacant lot at the foot of the bridge; I don't know who owns the big lot. If these lots were made available, free or by license like car-pool tags, I bet a lot of downtown workers would use it, parking there and walking or biking to their final destination. (Keeping a bike rack on your car is not too hard.) Mixed-mode transit could be enhanced by bike lockers at the lots, rented monthly. Risk exposure need not be high, because used bikes suitable for such short trips can be had for under $25.
To implement policies like this, the City needs to identify vacant lots everywhere, adopt policy to govern them, rent them on a temporary basis from their owners, and turn them back as owners are ready to develop. The city wins through license fees, the lot owner wins, and if the driver doesn't win, they won't use it. There's also plenty of opportunity to try it on a pilot basis.
It's also important to develop policy specific to the needs of users. Needs of employees, commuters who are daily users, differ from those of occassional shoppers. My bias is to focus on the needs of commuters, and more spaces will trickle down to shoppers. Likewise, more biking strategy should be aimed at commuters, who'd use improvements daily, over recreational users, whose use is infrequent and optional.
More effort should also be made to add secure lockers to park-and-ride facilities. If we subsidize parking at transit stations, we should subsidize bike parking at least as much. Remember, gasoline is a valuable and limited resource, a pollutant, and an import the state. Every wholesale dollar spent for gas leaves the state; otherwise it would recirculate here, boosting the economy.
--John
Posted by: John Weigant | May 31, 2006 7:17:32 AM
Sam,
For the retail interests, time limits on parking meters keep the parking spots changing and increases the possibility of having one vacant when a customer needs one. (60 minutes or 90 minutes keep the employees away.) Thus parking enforcement is necessary and parking fees help pay for enforcement. But the tax on parking downtown and Lloyd area keeps me away. I'll pay a reasonable amount to park for a quick shopping trip, but when given the option to drive a few more miles or pay the city parking tax to patronize a downtown business, I'll drive the other way.
The conflict also exists when needed parking places (or needed traffic lanes) are eliminated to provide bicycle lanes (-a political agenda that isn't charged for). I can't park on my own residential street in front of my 90 years old home because the traffic pattern was deemed more important - I agree it was more important, but the city gave me, the homeowner, no compensation when they took away my residential curb parking, yet it charges me to park on other people's streets.
Parking shouldn't be free. In fact its fees should pay for enforcement- but the way to make people want to shop in businesses is to provide customers with the "most affordable" parking around. Make it a marketing point - not a reason to leave.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by: R. Karman | May 31, 2006 10:01:01 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
What are the policies in Portland? Where does the revenue go?
(great post Sam!)
Posted by: Mikey | Sep 8, 2005 4:57:15 PM