From the “on the other hand” department: if you live in or near San Francisco, or you’ve been here on a visit, you’ve probably noticed that it’s really hard to find a place to park in San Francisco. Some times, it’s damn near impossible.
So what to do? You might think from what I said the other day that San Franciscco politicians would likely respond to such a situation by passing laws banning cars from the City, or taxing each vehicle that enters the City (and, in fact, proposals along these lines have been floated, in one form or another, over the past few years.)
But now a new idea is under discussion — one that would use the free market to address our parking crunch — “market rate parking.”
Essentially, market rate parking would cover areas of the City with new high-tech “super parking meters,” that would operate around the clock and charge something like $3 per hour. You’d be able to use smart cards, or your credit/debit card, to pay for parking. The City would gain more revenue, and the higher market prices would have people use only the parking they needed. (Regular meters now cost about $1.25.hour during business hours, and curb space is free all over town after 6 pm.) Also, you would do away with the phenomenon of people racing out to feed meters, and also do away with a good many of the “I ran out of change” type of parking tickets — most of which run $35-$50 per violation.
But more than anything else, charging a market rate for parking will end what is right now a de facto subsidy for car owners. San Francsico’s byzantine planning and development rules now require that a certain number of off-street parking spaces be included with every development project. The fact is, of course, that the developments in question invariably generate more auto traffic than the parking spaces the developers have been forced to include. Nevertheless, the costs of those parking spaces are priced into the rents and goods and services that get provided at these locations. In other words: right now, we ALL are paying for that “cheap and free” street parking that no one can ever seem to find.
This is a classic price/quantity dislocation resulting from a subsidy. It’s not a subsidy we think about much, but it is a subsidy, make no mistake. And the costs of this subsidized parking is borne by all of us in the form of higher costs for the goods and services we buy.
UCLA Planning Professor David Shoup makes this point in detail in his new book “The High Cost of Free Parking”, released last week by the American Planners Association press. His point is compelling — the free market may give us a solution to our parking woes that is more efficient — and more equitable — than the mess we’ve got now:
Charging market-rate prices for curb parking is economically efficient, and it may become politically feasible, but is it fair? Many people will initially say no, but they may change their minds after they think about it. After all, the complaint that charging for curb parking is unfair can be made against charging for almost anything. Motorists pay for most other costs of owning and operating a car (gasoline, tires, repairs, insurance, and the vehicle itself), but few see this as unjust.
If people pay rent for housing, why shouldn’t cars pay rent for parking? To judge whether charging for curb parking is fair, we can compare it with the current alternative — off-street parking requirements that increase the prices of everything else. With off-street parking requirements, even households without cars pay for parking indirectly in the form of higher prices for everything they buy. In contrast, when curb spaces are priced at market rates, only parkers must absorb the cost. Charging for curb parking is thus fairer than imposing off-street parking requirements, especially for those who are too poor to own a car. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that households with incomes less than $25,000 a year are nine times more likely not to own a car than households with incomes greater than $25,000 a year. Similarly, households living in a rented residence are six times more likely than homeowners not to own a car.
Because cars are unequally distributed in the population, charging drivers for the curb parking they use is fairer than forcing everyone to pay for off-street parking, even those who do not use it. Parking requirements take money from the poor to subsidize the better-off: drivers park without paying, while nondrivers pay without parking. I am not saying we should pay more for parking. Off-street parking requirements already force everyone, including the carless, to pay too much for parking indirectly. I am saying we should pay for parking directly. Cities can individualize–decollectivize–the cost of parking, so that we pay less for parking if we use less. While we all want to park free, we should not elevate this wish into a social judgment that charging for curb parking is unfair, especially when we compare it with the alternative — off-street parking requirements that impose a heavy burden even on those with the least ability to pay. Almost everyone will be better off by paying only for the parking they use and not paying the high costs off-street parking requirements impose on everyone.
Update, Mon. 3/28 5:42 PM: You can read an entire chapter of Prof. Shoup’s book here, as well as a paper by Prof. Shoup that thoroughly examines the costs of free parking and how it skews our transportation and planning processes. (Both documents require Acrobat Reader.)
March 26th, 2005 | Economics, SF Politics & Culture