Is parking too cheap?

[whighlander]

Of course the on-street parking permit system needs to be fixed as well. But that's more for the benefit of on-street parkers. Frankly, I think Brookline is right to ban overnight on-street parking. It's an annexation of the public commons by private interests, e.g. "tragedy of the commons." The problem of cows grazing on the Boston Common was solved by ban, for instance.

But a ban is not the only solution. Another correct way to solve that problem is to introduce a market for on-street parking permits. The city is essentially the largest owner of parking spaces in the region, yet is giving them away for free. No wonder there's "shortages" and problems. That's what happens when you give away a limited resource for free. The Soviet Union learned that lesson the hard way, with bread and other essentials. Over here, we seem to understand that for most goods, there needs to be a market. For some reason, that understanding goes completely out the window when it comes to parking.

There's similarities to the "pollution problem" where a private interest cuts its costs by dumping pollution on other people's property. The libertarian answer to this problem is to ban that kind of selfish behavior, have the polluter pay for the clean-up, and pay for proper disposal in the future.

Mathew -- first thing which needs to be done to rationalize the entire parking situation is rescind the Fed's & CLF agreement [who said the CLF represented any Citizen of Massachusetts] imposing a Freeze on the number of off-street parking spaces and essentially establishing a ban on new parking with a number of loop holes.

Since the ban:
1) The number of people living in Boston is greater
2) the number of people working in Boston has increased
3) the number of handicapped placards has increased reducing the number of on-street parking spots
4) the typical car is far cleaner
5) more people are using the T

Yet no consideration has been given to getting rid of the ban on new construction or even modifying it

 

[Matthew]

The Clean Air Act-based regulations do not apply to amenity parking, like that we are discussing. It only applies to commercially-operated parking garages. So moot point.

But I will mention also:

1) Boston's population has dropped since its high point and is only now beginning to recover.

2) This may not be true either, but I don't have the statistics at hand. It's not as cut and dried as you might think though.

3) So? Disabled people are people too. And the idea behind market pricing applies regardless.

4) I am thankful for this, certainly, but we are also learning more and more about the long-term dangers of particulates, and it's clear that we do not want to attract more cars into densely populated areas.

5) Also questionable. There has been a resurgence, but that was after a drop. T ridership has actually been fairly stable over the years, and IIRC, was higher in the past. If I had time, I'd dig up the stats, but I don't. Maybe later.

Having said that, the ideal libertarian solution does not feature any maximum cap on parking spaces. However, the ideal libertarian solution also does not feature taxpayer-subsidized toll-free highways either. If you're going to do the latter, expect the former as a mitigation measure, or some kind of road pricing to control pollution, congestion and other negative externalities.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The Clean Air Act-based regulations do not apply to amenity parking, like that we are discussing. It only applies to commercially-operated parking garages. So moot point.

But I will mention also:

1) Boston's population has dropped since its high point and is only now beginning to recover.

2) This may not be true either, but I don't have the statistics at hand. It's not as cut and dried as you might think though.

3) So? Disabled people are people too. And the idea behind market pricing applies regardless.

4) I am thankful for this, certainly, but we are also learning more and more about the long-term dangers of particulates, and it's clear that we do not want to attract more cars into densely populated areas.

5) Also questionable. There has been a resurgence, but that was after a drop. T ridership has actually been fairly stable over the years, and IIRC, was higher in the past. If I had time, I'd dig up the stats, but I don't. Maybe later.

Having said that, the ideal libertarian solution does not feature any maximum cap on parking spaces. However, the ideal libertarian solution also does not feature taxpayer-subsidized toll-free highways either. If you're going to do the latter, expect the former as a mitigation measure, or some kind of road pricing to control pollution, congestion and other negative externalities.

Point 1 is something of a miss-statement. It is true that Boston (city) population peaked some time between 1930 and 1950 (both census numbers are close to each other, with a dip in 1940). But the low point in population is the 1980 census. Since then the city population has steadily risen. 2010 is back to pre-1970 levels. So it depends on your definition of "recently". (And this does not include the other urban core cities, since Boston alone is not the full urban core).

Point 5 is actually not true. There has been pretty steady growth in T ridership over the past 2 decades. (Data through 2011, but 2012 and 2013 pretty much continued the trend.)

'MBTA’s ridership over the past two decades roughly parallels the national increase in ridership, rising at an average annual rate of 1.2% between 1991 and 2011."

http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/Final-Hub-and-Spoke-Report.pdf

 

[HenryAlan]

Henry -- have you ever lived in a building with 0 parking spots per unit and then tried to park during a snow emergency when one side of the street is closed to parking?

I did in East Cambridge

Unless cars are banned -- parking needs to be provided to people who occupy units that does not require parking on the city streets

Fewer than 1 parking space per unit -- may sound good to the "CLF" or the other granola suckers [a lot no longer have the teeth to chew on the crunchy stuff unless its soaked in Almond milk -- but I digress] -- but it just encourages those who can't park off-street -- to drive around wasting fuel looking for on-street parking

I have lived in such circumstances, and it's not hard to understand the rules about parking and follow them. However, when we are talking about a building with 43 units and 38 parking slots, I believe the intention is that some residents will not have a car, opting to save money on renting a parking spot.

 

[Matthew]

But the low point in population is the 1980 census. Since then the city population has steadily risen. 2010 is back to pre-1970 levels. So it depends on your definition of "recently".

The 1970 census measured more population in Boston than the current 2012 estimates suggest, if just barely (~20k). We were talking about a regulation that was instituted in the mid-1970s. So my point is that there hasn't been much population growth since the mid-1970s, but instead a dip followed by a regrowth which has only recently nearly caught back up with the 1970 census.

Point 5 is actually not true. There has been pretty steady growth in T ridership over the past 2 decades. (Data through 2011, but 2012 and 2013 pretty much continued the trend.)

'MBTA’s ridership over the past two decades roughly parallels the national increase in ridership, rising at an average annual rate of 1.2% between 1991 and 2011."

Well, again, we're comparing against pre-Clean Air act Boston. But to be fair, I was basing my "questioning" on the fact that I've seen ridership numbers for particular routes from 1960s which were surprisingly similar to today. But this does not account for new extensions, routes, of course.

I will see if I can dig up those historical numbers sometime, they're a bit hard to find, and I'm busy today.

 

[HenryAlan]

Mathew -- first thing which needs to be done to rationalize the entire parking situation is rescind the Fed's & CLF agreement [who said the CLF represented any Citizen of Massachusetts] imposing a Freeze on the number of off-street parking spaces and essentially establishing a ban on new parking with a number of loop holes.

Since the ban:
1) The number of people living in Boston is greater
2) the number of people working in Boston has increased
3) the number of handicapped placards has increased reducing the number of on-street parking spots
4) the typical car is far cleaner
5) more people are using the T

Yet no consideration has been given to getting rid of the ban on new construction or even modifying it

For the sake of discussion, I will accept your five points as truthful. Logically, they point to the idea that Boston can and does grow (points 1 & 2), even with less parking availability (as a percentage of larger share, also per points 3 and 5). This means that we do not need to accomodate more cars to succeed as an urban space. Point 4 is irrelevant, because this discussion hasn't really regarded pollution so much as efficient resource utilization.

 

[JeffDowntown]

For the sake of discussion, I will accept your five points as truthful. Logically, they point to the idea that Boston can and does grow (points 1 & 2), even with less parking availability (as a percentage of larger share, also per points 3 and 5). This means that we do not need to accomodate more cars to succeed as an urban space. Point 4 is irrelevant, because this discussion hasn't really regarded pollution so much as efficient resource utilization.

There is an interesting corollary here though about urban growth. While you do not need to accommodate more cars to continue the growth in Boston, you do need to accommodate the movement of more people. This means if you are not investing in car movement and storage, you better be investing in other parallel transportation means (T, bike lanes, etc.), otherwise the growth will stop.

 

[George_Apley]

^ Right. My concerns about developers cutting out parking isn't that I want to see more cars in the city, I don't. But I'm concerned that if there's not a parallel investment in other forms of transportation, the existing system's inefficiencies will only get worse, and scare politicians and developers away from smart-growth. I still hope that cutting parking will lead to more improvements in other modes, but given our political leadership I have my worries.

 

[cden4]

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/...-menino-announces-holiday-parking-initiative/

 

[davem]

How is this helping anything? There's not a lack of traffic downtown on Saturdays as it is, and the spots are usually all full. Besides, I doubt that paying for parking is the reason people aren't driving into town to begin with. A) its bitching cold walking around, and B) its not he price of parking, but the lack of it. A better ploy would be to open the city garages for free on Saturdays, but keep street parking the same.

The toys for tickets and reduced meter cards are good ideas though. I will probably be taking advantage of the former =\

 

[Matthew]

I saw that. Typical facepalm move from Menino, shows why he's a suburbanite at heart. Cheaper? Maybe, depends how you value time and aggravation. Easier? No, quite the opposite.

 

[cden4]

Encouraging more people to compete for already filled parking spaces, adding congestion and noise and further degrading the experience for pedestrians. Happy holidays!

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Where's the libertarians when you need them? They always disappear when push comes to shove.

Hey, I'm right here! I fully support mass transit, because it's the preferred mode in a world of free market real-estate development and transportation.

 

[whighlander]

Hey, I'm right here! I fully support mass transit, because it's the preferred mode in a world of free market real-estate development and transportation.

Urb -- No it isn't in a Free Market world people drive and also importantly carry their business stuff in privately owned vehicles that drive on streets and highways

If you do an informal "census" at a busy intersection on a work day -- you will find that close to 1/3 of the vehicles are moving stuff -- that just can't be done effectively with Mass Transit

 

[DigitalSciGuy]

Urb -- No it isn't in a Free Market world people drive and also importantly carry their business stuff in privately owned vehicles that drive on streets and highways

If you do an informal "census" at a busy intersection on a work day -- you will find that close to 1/3 of the vehicles are moving stuff -- that just can't be done effectively with Mass Transit

I'm not even going to try to get in between you two, but ideally you're both right. In a holistic, mile-high view of a transport network, transit will carry the majority of trips in an urban area to enable more compact and efficient development while that 33% of trips - which include freight and parcel vehicles - are able to use the non-transit dedicated road space and parking/dedicated loading zones to conduct their business.

That's really what this discussion boils down to: using data and theory on human behaviours and known externalities to improve the transport network from a holistic perspective to better balance bottlenecks or inefficiencies introduced from prior myopic, mode-specific decisions.

Also, mark your calendars, because Mr. Shoup will be in town for MAPC's 2014 Parking Conference.

Also, a point of facts that I think are exceedingly relevant to this discussion:

• car registrations have dropped by ~14%/50,000 cars in the last 5 years
• population has increased by ~4.8%/30,000 people from 2000-2010 and increased by ~3%/19,000 people from 2010-2012 alone
• the USDOT is HORRIBLE at predicting travel volume trends and this is what most states and agencies use to justify construction of road works and parking volumes
  
  
  
  Vehicle miles traveled in trillions as tracked by FHWA’s Travel Volume Trends, compared to projections from the U.S. DOT "Conditions and Performance Report to Congress."

 

[Arlington]

Considering what the price of fuel has done in the last twelve or so years, I'd say that chart hardly makes a case for the car falling substantially out of favor as you'd like us to believe. Between gas prices and Americans generally being worse off financially than they were in the not too distant past, it is actually rather impressive that vehicle miles remain this high.

Yours is a thoughtful answer, considering macro factors, but the DOT isn't taking any of that into account.

Whether it was a period of rising or falling gas prices, good economy or bad, the DOT projections have always been straight-line up at a slope that is clearly not based on anything, except, perhaps, what the slope looked like pre-1997 (maybe the 1980s?)

You may say that even a flattened curve is sign that people really love cars despite all the adversities. But the adversities aren't going away, and this forecast matters, since it is leading us to over-invest in roads and under-invest in car alternatives.

 

[Arlington]

I'm not saying that people are still totally in love with cars but rather that they don't despise them to the degree that the anti-automobile/transit-everywhere set would like to believe.

I agree, but I do see a real danger in the USDOT forecast that we'll spend a lot of money on roads (or parking) we don't need (because DOT wrongly tells us that we will need them).

 

[Matthew]

Well, DOT has been overpredicting since the late 90s according to that chart. And car infrastructure has real costs -- beyond dollars -- that are often unacknowledged by DOT engineers. I think there is always a good argument to be made for efficient usage and stewardship of resources, but it was an argument largely ignored in the 20th century.

Regarding gas prices, I've seen studies to the effect that the single largest factor behind car usage is cost of operation -- of which fuel price is a major part. I don't expect gas prices to ever fall back to the artificially cheap era, and they should slowly trend upwards over time naturally, so if that's it, then it's here to stay.

 

[George_Apley]

I'm not saying that people are still totally in love with cars but rather that they don't despise them to the degree that the anti-automobile/transit-everywhere set would like to believe.

Are there people who have expressed the sentiment that Americans "despise cars" now? Sounds more like a strawman. There's been a clear and gradual shift due to a number of economic and generational factors. If USDOT continues to essentially make up the projections that drive public policy, it will hamper the ability of our society to react appropriately to these changes.

 

[DigitalSciGuy]

Whelp, the gas tax is now tied to inflation after 2015 and oil isn't getting easier to obtain (and will eventually run out), so cost of operation won't be going down any time soon.

Also, driving trends already started to decrease before the recession, already evidenced by the aforementioned FWHA travel trends data and more comprehensively analysed in this USPIRG report. Also, regardless of the reported seething hatred of cars from people purportedly by 'the anti-automobile/transit-everywhere set', people are continuing to drive less today in this recovery period than before the recession.

I should hope we also all agree that 'anti-automobile/transit-everywhere' is a radical, dichotomous view of transportation that is as stupid and myopic as 'pro-automobile/anti-transit'. I don't think any of us are at either extreme.

Rather, those of us who are more pro-transit/parking reduction are instead begging a discussion on a more holistic view of transportation that looks at what modes make more sense where with respect to well-known direct and external costs.

I have a Zipcar account - I fully acknowledge that cars have a place, but where I live, it certainly doesn't make sense all the time, or even a majority of the time. Car sharing services are also new to the scene as of these changing trends. They liberate people (not in all places) from having to own a car all the time and thus feeling obligated to drive more often because the operating costs (time and fuel) are less directly associated with each ride, whereas these rental services make you fully aware of how much per hour of your time that you are willing to spend in that vehicle.