[sustran] parking impact on use versus ownership

Walter Hook whook at itdp.org
Fri Apr 28 00:43:38 JST 2006


I am having a hard time jiving your statistics with the statistics presented
by Don Shoup.  He sites a study done in westwood village, California, when
they increased the parking charges from very low to market rates in the
village, the total number of motor vehicle arrivals per hour increased from
829 to 1410.  (p.366)  This generated a lot of new daily traffic, not less
daily traffic.   

 

In Eastern Europe, people used to park their old trabants and wartburgs in
front of their apartment buildings and they would sit there for months at a
time without use.  Shopkeepers would really complain, of course.  Maybe this
encouraged continued auto ownership but not auto use.   The shopkeepers were
strong supporters of the charge on parking.  This allowed the city to tow a
lot of these vehicles.  Now, maybe hundreds of cars could share the space
previously occupied by a vehicle generating zero trips.  Maybe this
encouraged use but not ownership.  Subsidy or no, use of a motor vehicle and
parking of a motor vehicle are different phenomenon.   

 

Imagine a theoretical situation: a city and a suburb.  City residents own
one million cars, occupying all the parking spaces, and they are free.  City
residents also have a good transit system, so they drive their cars out to
the country once a month, and use the transit system to get to work.
Suburban residents have lousy transit service, and would love to drive into
the city, but they cant because there is no place to park, so they struggle
onto commuter trains, take slow buses, etc.  Then the parking fees are
increased sharply.  Half the urban residents sell their cars.  Ownership in
the city goes down by half.  Half the suburban residents can now drive to
work every day.  Suburban auto ownership stays the same, but auto use
measured in terms of vmt increases dramatically.  

 

Unquestionably, charging for parking is more efficient, but it seems quite
possible that increasing parking charges across the board could induce
demand rather than reduce demand, though you may be right that it could
depress ownership.  

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Todd Alexander Litman
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:34 PM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; Asia and the Pacific
sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on
streetparking.

 


There is no doubt that shifting from free to priced parking can reduce
vehicle ownership and use. Underpriced parking is the largest subsidy of
automobile travel - for each dollar a motorist spends directly on their
vehicle, somebody spends about $0.50 to subsidize its parking. In typical
situations, shifting from free to cost-recovery priced parking (parking
priced to cover its facility and operating costs) reduces automobile
ownership by 5-15% if applied to residential parking, and reduces vehicle
trips by 10-30% if applied at destinations such as worksite and other
commercial destinations. This implies that about 20% of our traffic
problems, road and parking costs, traffic accidents, fuel consumption and
pollution emissions can be "explained" by vehicle parking underpricing, or
described more positively, correcting parking underpricing can significantly
improve transportation system efficiency and address problems such as
excessive traffic risk and energy consumption.

Pricing can even be revenue neutral, for example, by "unbundling"
residential parking (parking is sold and rented separately from building
space, so for example, rather than renting an apartment for $1,000 per month
with two "free" parking spaces, the apartment rents for $800 per month, and
each parking space is a separate $100 per month) and "cashing out"
subsidized employee parking (commuters can choose between a subsidized
parking space or its cash equivalent, such as $100 per month). 

To be effective parking pricing must be correctly implemented. This means
appropriate price structures (preferably hourly and daily fees, with higher
rates during peak periods, and minimal exemptions and discounts), effective
enforcement, and good travel options (walking and cycling conditions, good
ridesharing and public transit services, etc.). To effect vehicle ownership
and use (rather than just parking location) pricing must be implemented over
an area, so motorists cannot simply park for free nearby.

Business people often demand parking subsidies to attract customers, but
their efforts are often misdirected. After all, people spend money, not
cars. While its true that if two businesses are otherwise equally
attractive, the one that offers free parking will tend to attract more
customers, there are other more important attributes, and areas which focus
only on cheap parking to attract customers often fail. For example, if
charging for parking reduces taxes and prices, increases parking turnover,
or funds transit services and local street improvements, many people while
choose an area where they must pay for parking (see Douglas Kolozsvari and
Donald Shoup, "Turning Small Change Into Big Changes," Access 23, University
of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net <http://www.uctc.net/> ),
Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf ).
Similarly, many areas with limited and priced parking are attractive places
to live and work, because they have better livability. Described
differently, charging for parking improves the quality of customers by
weeding out the cheepskates who won't pay a few cents to park, leaving
better spenders.

This is not anti-car. It recognizes that some trips will be made by
automobile and that we need to accommodate their need to park. But charging
for parking and using shared, public parking facilities (including on-street
and for-profit commercial parking) is far more equitable and efficient, and
significantly reduces the total amount of parking supply needed compared
with conventional parking planning practices which result in generous
amounts of parking at each destination. 

For more information see:

Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf ), 2006. 

MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of
Washington ( <http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx>
www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx), 2005.
 
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus,
Transportation and Land Use Coalition (
<http://www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html>
www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html), July 2002.
 
Oregon Downtown Development Association, Parking Management Made Easy: A
Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation and Growth
Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (
<http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm>
www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm), 2001.
 
Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers
and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
(www.nonprofithousing.org <http://www.nonprofithousing.org/> ) and the
Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy (
http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu <http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/> ), 2001.
 
USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart
Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (
<http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm>
www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm), 2006.
 

At 11:14 AM 4/26/2006, Sunny wrote:



I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the 
same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a 
increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing 
on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing 
would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the 
pricing would have the economic effect.

On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the 
ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user 
aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are 
spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can 
tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what 
if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in 
Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the 
other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car 
and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am wrong.

Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very 
very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time 
rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned 
above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me.

Sunny


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060427/0a36572b/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list