<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> 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@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@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 (<a href="http://www.uctc.net/">www.uctc.net</a>), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; <a href="http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf">www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf</a> ).  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 (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf">www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf</a> ), 2006. MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service Center of Washington (<a href="http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx"> www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx</a>), 2005.   Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (<a href="http://www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html"> www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html</a>), 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 (<a href="http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm"> www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm</a>), 2001.   Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (<a href="http://www.nonprofithousing.org/">www.nonprofithousing.org</a>) and the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy (<a href="http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/"> http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu</a>), 2001.   USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm"> www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm</a>), 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 </x-sigsep> <x-sigsep>Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora=autourl>www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </div> </body> </html>