You can argue forever about whether or not everyone should subsidize the transportation choices of others or not. We agree it happens, but whether it is acceptable is a matter of opinion.

There are some facts which Shoup proves:
1) Available parking, not “free” parking, improves the climate for businesses where parking is limited.
2) Parking requirements lead to urban sprawl, and higher costs for housing and other prices we pay as consumers.
3) By hiding the costs of parking, drivers ignore this cost and make more car trips more often than if they paid directly for parking costs.

Leading us back to opinions: Does air quality, dependence on oil, alternative transportation or sustainabilty matter to you?

However, it’s true that Americans would flee from paid parking, and vendors who lower their prices but charge for parking would lose business. People want their costs to be hidden. Wallowing in ignorance is good for business. If we had to understand the money we were spending on things we would probably riot. And it’s not like people who can’t afford cars — the ones who help pay for our parking but get nothing — are going to do anything about it. If they had any power they would buy cars.

It could work better - the surrounding city’s bus infrastructure is terrible, and moderately dangerous, and doesn’t serve even slightly suburban areas, whereas if it did, a lot fewer people would drive (I hope).

As for the people that don’t drive at all, they shouldn’t be paying at all for parking, yet if they seldom or occasionally use parking they are better off paying a little constantly, a risible amount, then paying the full price of what they have NOT paid before in just a few moments.

Beware of the sirens of privatization, most of the times it doesn’t benefit the consumer ; the biggest benefit come from technology invention and practical innovation , the rest is often marketing and cost shifting.

It’s easy to see Dr. Shoup’s motive - who gets the money from parking meters? The government, of course. What bugs the socialists in Berkeley is not that everyone pays for something that only 87% of the people use, but that the money goes to the first to private industry instead of the government’s coffers.

The socialists need as much money as possible so they can provide “free” stuff to the people who don’t support themselves.

In Los Angeles, many new shopping districts, like Old Pasadena or the Beverly Center, have pay parking. These places are immensely popular, in part because they end up being pleasant to be in, without acres of blacktop as far as the eye can see.

In every downtown area of a large city I have been to I had to pay for parking. In my locality it ranges from $7 to $12 for a day or about $3 per hour for hourly rates.

What can we learn from this and from every situation where some greedy person has discovered an excuse to transfer cost to the public? Simple: First someone must sell us on the idea that a cost of business is totally exaggerated and that we would be better off if we the consumers were to pay the expense directly. (Sounds like what I am reading here.)

Next thing you know you are paying yet another fee and low and behold the prices of the goods do not go down even though the business has just reduced it’s overhead.

Then come price increases to the new fee structure and increased profits for the greedy businessmen. It is genius, The business just converted a liability to an asset and the public now pays more.

As an example: remember the telco fee the government recently dropped? Did the telcos ever stop charging us for it? No. Of course they didn’t. They took the opportunity to increase there bottom line by converting that fee to one that now fills there greedy pockets rather than the public coffers.

This is a simple fact of life at this point; Any time anyone devises a way to pull money from your pocket you loose and corporate profits increase.

Most zoning codes allow for variances to reduce the amount of parking spaces required, but many municipal boards are scared to grant such variances. The real estate developer agrees to provide all the required spaces just to get his project approved, even if he’s sure that much parking space won’t be necessary.

Parking lots are not usually especially attractive. It might be a better use of the land if less were parking lots and more was available to be developed, used as parks or whatever other use made good sense.

Shoup’s point is that there’s no free lunch (or free land) and the cost of providing parking is embedded in the prices people pay and the rents and leases businesses pay. So don’t think it’s “free” cause it isn’t. Further, in many cases local government regulations require more parking spaces than are needed to offer adequate parking for all the reasons people have enumerated. So, he says, drop the parking requirements — which add unnecessarily to the cost of development, thus raisingthe embedded parking costs — and let the marketplace decide what’s needed.

Folks are paying a fortune for dwellings that are laid out very much like Soviet apartment blocks. But even Soviet apartments had a few stores within walking distance- these new communities don’t.

Anyway. If there are similar places to shop, and one starts charging for parking, all things being equal, consumers will shun the one that charges. According to many, the cost and inconvenience of parking downtown (including limited availability and the risk of a ticket) has led to the rise of the suburban shopping center at the expense of city merchants.

But what if both downtown and the mall started charging to park? And what if there’s a good bus or train to get people from their homes to downtown? Then shopping downtown becomes a whole lot more appealing, at least for many.

As with everything, the debate becomes a matter of priorities. Those who love their cars will of course be loath to be pay any more for the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to, and regard sprawl as an acceptable consequence or even desirable result of their space-loving ways. However, people who value European-style density or the environment would love to see the footprint of big-boxes shrink and transportation to become both more appealing and more practical.

Finally, I don’t think everyone’s bought into the idea that the lower cost of providing parking would get passed on to all consumers. However, there’s evidence of similar changes. Ryanair recently reduced all its fares by a few euros, but at the same time started charging passengers a few euros per checked bag. Similarly, if the average trip to Target were lowered by $1 because of reduced parking costs, and the cost to park were $1, drivers end up paying the same price in the end.

If I can find a way to tax “Free Love”, I’d suggest we do that as well.

For the most part, paid parking areas are a no-go zone for me. I either have to have some pressing need to be where paying for parking is required or I have been tricked somehow. I am stuck with paying for parking to get to my job, as my employer dropped that ball rather badly, this counts against them. As it is, Dearborn Michigan was putting in parking meters and lot gates last year in one of the business districts. I haven’t been back since.

The cost of paid parking = no chance of my business.

-David

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Haussmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren