May 31, 2008
Market-Rate On-Street Parking: Sign Me Up
Meg Muckenhoupt wrote a great article for the June 2008 issue of Boston magazine in which she discussed the craziness of one-dollar-per-hour on-street parking. Sean Roche posted a shockingly similar article in the Boston Globe back in August 2007 (thanks to John K at Boston Real Estate Blog).
These articles point out the absurdity of city parking meters charging a token fee for renting the most valuable real estate in the city, while garages charge twenty times as much.
It seems increasing meter rates benefits everybody:
- Fewer drivers looking for the perfect spot means less traffic, fuel consumption, and exhaust
- Higher turnover means fewer long-term “squatters” hogging up all the good spots
- Parking garages will be forced to lower rates to remain competitive
- More customers and increased revenue for local businesses
- Increased revenue for the city
I’m all for charging market rate for parking, whatever it may be. I paid for my parking in the city; everyone else should do the same.
And while we’re making some changes, let’s get rid of the stupid resident-only neighborhood parking permits. Residents with cars need to get their own parking spots and let those visitors who choose on-street parking pay the market-rate all day every day. I see no good reason for the city to subsidize their parking. I might even take things a step further; shorten on-street spaces from eighteen feet to fifteen feet to encourage the use of smaller cars and increase city revenue.
OT: At the bottom of the Boston Magazine article (page 22) Lisa Przystup posted a terribly misleading graph showing the fluctuating median single-family home sale prices. The graph she chose shows the market bottomed out; however, this graph bottoms out at $300K, not zero. In sixth grade, we all learned graphs need to be zeroed to maintain accurate perspective. I’m disappointed a reputable magazine, one of my favorites, allowed this to be published.
Dine and Dash: Looking for Brunch Near Bay Village
Tom said:
While your points about parking are all correct, the goals of the city are not necessarily efficiency or revenue. They might want be aiming for ‘equity’. Considering how you don’t pay the ‘market rate’ for any of your other transportation needs, that seems like a reasonable position.
Essentially, this is an auction versus lottery question. A system in which people the winners are those who can pay top dollar is certainly more efficient, but not necessarily “better”.
The city seems to be willing to subsidize the person who is willing to spend time looking for, and walking to and from, the rarely free spots. Given the availability of garage space, I think it’s a justifiable position.
June 5, 2008 7:45 AM
Alyk said:
Hi Tom- thanks for visiting.
Excellent point about auction vs. lottery. Both articles I mentioned seem to be pro-auction. Do you see any benefits to the lottery system?
June 5, 2008 8:14 AM
Alyk said:
It’s funny how people, myself included, think they hit the jackpot when they find a good space. Before now, I never considered it a lottery.
June 5, 2008 8:15 AM