There Is No Such Thing As Free Parking

A new book published by the American Planning Association, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” outlines how free parking contributes to our total dependence on the automobile. The study written by UCLA professor Donald Shoup points out that 99 percent of all parking is free. The fact that people know when they get in their cars that they will have access to free parking makes it highly unlikely that they will consider any other transportation options.

I have written often about the lack of parking in the area of Seattle where I live. I rarely choose to drive for trips around the downtown area. I know that free parking will probably not be available so I use other means to get around. My issues with parking are not shared by most drivers so most Americans rely almost exclusively on the automobile for transportation.

In 2002, $374 billion was spent nationally to subsidize off-street parking. Parking is not free. This comes in an era when municipalities are screaming that they cannot afford to construct mass transit systems. There has been strong opposition in Seattle to the $1.4 billion monorail project passed by voters which is set to begin construction next year. The anti-monorail contingent claims that the city cannot afford the system, yet they don’t object to city street construction projects that dwarf the $1.4 billion for the monorail. Construction for the new 520 bridge has been estimated at upwards of $11 billion—that’s a lot of monorails.

I wonder if it is even remotely possible to calculate how much we spend in this country on automobiles. How much do we spend on roads, parking, cars, insurance hospitalization for the over 1.9 million injured in traffic accidents, and don’t forget to factor in the cost of over 40,000 killed each year by cars? I haven’t even mentioned gasoline which is at record prices across the nation. Does anyone still want to tell me that we can’t afford to build mass transit?

Americans insistence on free parking has all but destroyed the retail businesses in countless cities across the nation. Instead of shopping in downtown areas people choose the convenience of malls with their acres and acres of free parking. It would be easy enough for municipalities to force people to pay for parking no matter where they choose to do their shopping. If motorists were forced to pay the true costs of driving whenever they got behind the wheel of their cars they would quickly begin to think of other transportation solutions.

In an essay in the April issue of Car and Driver, Brock Yates puts forth some ridiculous ideas about traffic problems, but what do you expect from someone on the payroll of the auto industry. One the one hand Yates points out that although New York City is the country’s biggest metropolis, it doesn’t yank in the top ten cities for congestion. He blames this in part to the city’s “thievishly expensive” parking and its mass transit system. He then goes on to say that mass transit systems won’t work in other areas because many cities are too spread out. His childish solution for those cities is for everyone to work at home. This is what you would expect from a writer who calls everyone in NYC “blue-state elites.” At the top of the essay there is a picture of the author standing in front of a 5 mph speed limit sign. If we follow Yates’ advice, 5 mph will be the top speed of automobiles stuck in endless sprawl.

The answer to our transportation problems is to make citizens realize the cost of their actions. Free parking is an expensive subsidy that blinds people to the real costs of driving. If you were forced to pay for parking every trip you took in a car then suddenly other ideas would occur to you.

More comments

Dude, I am working on a project in South Bend, Indiana and the traffic here is terrible for such a small city. There is literally no downtown any more of any substance, but of course there are hundreds of square miles of formerly arable land given up to build endless strip malls--and to accommodate the free parking concept of which you mention in your essay.

The people here long ago abandoned the idea of a centrally-located center city in favor of remote "shopping zones" way out in the country and only accessible by car. Apparently having plenty of Wal-Marts, Best Buys, Home Depots, Chili's, and Outback Steakhouses out in the country was more important than having a downtown.

It's a weird, disjointed, impersonal, automobile-dominated, and quite unfriendly (road rage in our generation is at epidemic levels) way to live. But this is apparently what people want.

mat

I’m afraid that the man-made landscape of most of America has already been lost to the sort of mindless sprawl that Mat is talking about in South Bend, Indiana. Why should I give a fuck? Where I live in Seattle, Washington life has just been getting better and better thanks to forward-thinking zoning laws. In the six years that I have lived in downtown Seattle, my neighborhood has seen a rapid increase in population density with a corresponding growth in services. Parking sucks where I live and I wish that it would get worse. I wish that the city could eliminate parking on city streets which would breathe more life into every block. I am sick of looking at semi-desolate canyons of parked SUV’s. Your dormant Escalade blocks my view of a beautiful street. Fuck you, take the bus into town, or at least drive something less obtrusive that I can see around.

Any time you get rid of cars people flood in to fill the vacuum. When you think of any cool urban area you realize that what makes it cool isn’t lots of free parking and easy access by automobile. It is cool because of the lack of cars and easy access for pedestrians.

management