Shai Agassi has an idea so revolutionary it’s convinced venture capitalists to commit hundreds of millions of dollars, major corporations to sign on, and the leaders of countries around the world scrambling to sign up to be the guinea pigs for his new technology. It’s also an idea that, as soon as it is heard by many Americans, causes them to sneer. Perhaps this response should be no surprise, since Agassi’s idea aims to completely revolutionize the quintessential American mode of transport, the automobile.

Automobiles are ripe for re-invention, but progress is halting. Between pure electric, fuel cells, ethanol, plug-in hybrids, and natural gas vehicles, the technology of the sustainable auto of the future is anything but clear. Other, less practical concepts abound. Some urbanists are keen to make the city totally car-free, based around bicycles, walking, and transit.

The Concept

Agassi, formerly an executive with the global software company SAP, struck upon what he thinks will become a paradigm shift for the auto. In his plan, owners of electric vehicles subscribe with his company. In exchange for the fees they pay (carefully calibrated to be below the cost of operating a gasoline vehicle) they get the right to swap their batteries at a large network of re-fueling stations, or charge up at special plug-in spots located at work or even their home. The car’s computer shows the way when the charge is low. The company charges the batteries using wind farms, solar generation, and other sustainable sources. The difference between the subscriber fees and the amortized cost of the infrastructure and battery service is pure profit. Countries eager to shift their transportation systems away from petroleum can further encourage a shift to electric technology through tax differentials on the autos themselves. Israel has planned a differential based on environmental impact: electric cars will be taxed at a 10 percent rate, compared with 79 percent on gas-powered cars and 30 percent on hybrids.

What about the notorious range problem for all-electric vehicles? Better Place claims their vehicle, developed by the Renault-Nissan Alliance, will have a range of 100 miles. Roughly 95% of all daily auto trips in the U.S. are less than 30 miles, and over 99% are less than 100 miles. Given a liberal smattering of battery changing stations, the range problem is vastly reduced.

The logic is compelling. After all, we already use one privately owned network infrastructure on a daily basis, for cellular phones. The subscriber model means most can get phones for very low cost, and a vibrant market exists for new and used handsets. The dashing CEO has been convincing quite a few political leaders, with deals inked to build networks in Denmark, Israel, and Australia, and plans underway for Hawaii and the San Francisco region. The governor of economically beleaguered state of Michigan even took a test drive in the company’s prototype in November. (above)

Urban Effects

In general I’m not as skeptical as some critics. The concept seems sound, particularly for geographically compact regions like Israel and Hawaii. But what will the impact of the Better Place system be on our cities? Some would obviously be positive. Since private vehicles are major sources of air pollution, mass adoption of electric vehicles will result in immediately improved public health and cleaner air. Taxicabs and Zipcars (already leased from designated parking spots) could be converted to clean, all-electric fleets.

When it comes to urban form, the result is less clear. In the words of two Israeli environmentalists:

Car-based transportation requires the building of more highways and roads, new bridges and intersections that would take up land; it also creates the conditions for urban sprawl, which would take up even more land. This is a non-sustainable solution for Israel.

But would it? Conventional urban economic theory holds that that transportation systems increase the spatial extent (and decrease density) of the city if they reduce the cost of transportation. If we assume the network covers the entire metropolitan area, and the Better Place system was less expensive than gasoline cars, it could encourage sprawl and cause new, electric-car fueled traffic congestion on our roads. The networked system might result in a altogether new urban form, both less centralized than the rail-dominated cities of the early 20th century, or the formless sprawl facilitated by the long range of gasoline vehicles. Slightly shorter ranges than gasoline combined with the modern economy could encourage the development of polycentric urban areas, perhaps unintentionally anticipated in this Wired illustration of the Better Place network, where freeways loop strangely around nodes of skyscrapers and no sidewalks are in sight.

In fact, Agassi’s plan could have another unintended effect: boosting the number of cars in the city. In a worst-case scenario, where the network (or tax policies) subsidize the cost of the vehicle and make driving even cheaper than gasoline transport, Better Place could boost rates of auto ownership and distance traveled, exacerbating parking shortages and traffic.

How can we avoid these outcomes? Property pricing parking and abolishing parking requirements in urban areas would help auto owners bear the true cost of their intensive use of urban space and ensure all vehicles can park. Congestion pricing policies could reduce congestion in dense urban areas, shifting travel to more space-efficient transit. Our cities will need continued transit investment.

With the first charging station open in Israel and Renault-Nissan’s vehicles set to hit Israeli streets in 2011, these questions may be answered in just a few years.

> Wired: “Driven: Shai Agassi’s Audacious Plan to Put Electric Cars on the Road”
> Economist: “Renault-Nissan’s ambitious plans for all-electric cars”
> Better Place

Better Place photos: Renault-Nissan electric car in Denmark, Better Place Israel CEO at the first charging station, Better Place CEO Shai Agassi and Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm; Wired Magazine illustration

The Data
The parking lots and structures in downtown Ann Arbor are operated by a quasi-public organization, the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Together with their parking vendor, last April they implemented a system that provides real-time information about the number of parking spaces available in several lots and garages through digital signs at each garage and through their website. An old Ann Arbor friend Brian Kerr wrote a simple script to scrape that page every 20 minutes and record the number of spaces available at each facility. After letting it run for about two weeks, he posted the data file online. Subsequently a local blogger interviewed the DDA’s IT manager about how the system was implemented, and even posted some charts encouraging visitors to match the chart with the garage. The data sparked a bit of interest on local blogs but the conversation soon died out.

At the time of the completion of a recent parking study in 2007, the DDA operated lots and structures containing 5,770 parking spaces in downtown Ann Arbor. These facilities are concentrated in a relatively small physical area, as shown in this map from the study:

For my first pass at the data I thought I’d look at just one garage, indicated by the arrow above. As is shown, the Maynard Street structure is near two movie theaters, a busy commercial district, and one block from the University of Michigan Central Campus Diag, with many classroom buildings and a large auditorium. The first chart is the number of spaces available in just one day – Monday, April 7, 2008:

The first thing to notice is that the garage is never full during any 20-minute measurement. Although the technical capacity of the garage is 797, the garage flat-lines at 618 (perhaps due to long-term permits or construction). The garage is only filled over 90% of this reduced capacity for one 40-minute period, from 1:40 p.m. to 2:20 p.m, or roughly 2.7% of the entire 24-hour period.

Expanding the time frame for the next 7 consecutive days reveals this pattern:

The spikes correspond with the midday rush, and the garage only fills once, around 1:00 p.m. on Friday, April 11th. This seemingly dry data can tell a rich sociological story; everyone rushes in just after nine, with various people lingering around into long into the evening. In a sense, the curve represents a unique DNA of the local land uses and the preferences and customs of their auto-using patrons, residents, and visitors.

Observations
Based on the data we can make a couple observations. First, the vast majority of the parking lots and structures are almost totally empty the majority of the time. This means they represent a huge amount of inactive urban space. A common rule of thumb is each structured space takes up 300 square feet of floor space for the bay and associated aisles and ramps. If we use this standard, the same floor area in this garage could be 239 apartments (assuming they average a generous 1,000 square feet). Certainly good design would demand a residential structure be taller or configured differently on the site. However, given the extremely fickle use of the garage now, a residential use would mean more people physically at the site on average than are now.

Second, from the chart above we can see that parking demand at the DDA’s prevailing price structure is very spiky, with extremely high demand only at limited times. (This garage costs $.80 an hour, or $175 for a monthly permit) It would seem logical for the DDA to use variable or tiered pricing to create a market incentive for a more efficient use of their space. For example, parking overnight could be inexpensive given the very low demand, with parking around the midday peak much more expensive. Even a modest form of performance parking may change this observed pattern.

Overparked?

Despite nearly 5,800 spaces the DDA continues to develop more parking, this October publishing on their website details about a proposed underground lot near the library boasting green design. How will the city know when they have enough parking? After all, parking policy guru Donald Shoup points out one can rarely provide enough of something that’s under priced. The proposal for the new garage advises readers to “review the findings of the 2007 Parking Study to learn why vehicle parking is needed even with extensive investment in alternative transportation.” Unfortunately the 2007 Parking Study doesn’t exactly settle the matter, including as one of its final recommendations “Maintain a formalized process for determining when new supply is needed.” The study, by the alternative transportation experts Nelson/Nygaard, is chock full of state-of-the-art policy suggestions (including variable pricing discussed above) but avoids the sticky question of determining how much is necessary. Perhaps it’s because like other seemingly scientific questions in urban planning the answer is not scientific but value-laden and political. (A similar question: How many freeways and/or lanes do we need?) And in Ann Arbor, the people want more parking.

Parking in the Real-Time City
In another vein, publishing this real-time data (especially on a still forthcoming mobile format) could itself have profound implications for the transportation system. Could real-time data allow people to avoid full structures and make use of the resource more efficient? The Washington, D.C. suburban rail station lots tend to fill up early, and I’ve heard stories of people driving downtown stopping at each station to look for a spot. What if the space was beamed to their home computer or car? (The more important question might be, “How much parking should they provide to begin with, and what should it be priced?” One suggestive study I saw of San Francisco’s BART concluded replacing parking with offices would boost the agency’s riders and revenue) If the DDA makes summary data available on the website, it would make costly data collection unnecessary for this data point. All citizens would know exactly how full or empty the garages were, and the DDA would be able to observe the impact of pricing or policy changes in real time.

> Previous parking posts: The Urbanists’ Panacea: Parking Reform, Are Expensive Parking Meters Fair?, more
> Homeless Dave’s Interview with the DDA’s Stephen Smith
> Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority

Washington, D.C. needs to get serious about downtown congestion. London congestion pricing has been a smashing success, with the Times reporting today on an unexpected benefit: drastically reduced parking costs downtown. Not the mention the significant revenue for public transportation investment. Now officials in Manchester are contemplating a two-ring system that would charge motorists £1-3 to enter the city, depending on the time of day and location. While business types are skeptical (as they usually are) the only evidence they can marshal are opinion polls. That takes us to Paris, a city that has cut auto use by 20 percent in seven years — without London-style congestion pricing. When parking spaces were converted to a dedicated bus route, the residents of the Left Bank neighborhood of Montparnasse held a funeral, predicting the death of the neighborhood. Now the owner of a famous cafe admits “We’ve come to love it,” noting the bus brings workers and customers with improved efficiency. Elsewhere in the city, programs initiated by mayor Bertrand Delanoë are raising the cost of parking, creating dedicated bus and bicycle lanes, making tens of thousands of bikes available for rent, and “civilizing” the city’s most car-friendly streets by cutting lanes and expanding pedestrian space.

D.C.’s attempts are meager in comparison. Increased parking meter prices are only in effect in several neighborhoods. The tiny and highly-hyped bike sharing program still hasn’t launched despite media reports it would start in May. The networking of bicycle lanes and trails is fragmented and far shorter than other U.S. cities. DDOT’s experimental bus and bicycle lane on 9th Street downtown is too short and poorly marked and enforced to make much of a difference.

The solutions to congestion are at hand, all that’s lacking is the resources and political will to do them.

Sec. 59-E-3.7. Schedule of requirements.

Off-street parking space must be provided as follows:

Airport, airpark and airfield. Adequate space for off-street parking for at least 50 vehicles.

Ambulance service or rescue squad. Adequate space to accommodate all motor vehicles operated in connection with such use and 2 additional parking spaces per each such vehicle.

Apartment. Same as multiple-family dwelling.

Apartment, accessory. Normally 2 parking spaces per lot. However, the Board of Appeals may require more or permit less in accordance with the special exception provisions for accessory apartments contained in Section 59-G-2.00(c)(4).

Apartment hotel. One parking space for each transient bedroom; for each apartment or transient suite with no separate bedroom–one space; for each apartment or transient suite with one separate bedroom-1 1/4 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 2 bedrooms-1 1/2 spaces; for each apartment or transient suite with 3 or more separate bedrooms-2 spaces, and one parking space for each 2 employees on the major shift; plus 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and other similar places of assembly.

Auditorium or stadium. One automobile parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3.

Automobile filling station. Two parking spaces for each car wash bay, grease bay or similar service area, and one parking space for each employee.

Automobile repair and service station. One parking space for each employee, and 3.3 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Bed-and-breakfast lodging. Except as provided in the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.09.2(f), one parking space for each guest room. These spaces are in addition to the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Section 59-E-3.7 for the dwelling unit in which the establishment is located.

Boardinghouse. One parking space for each guest accommodation on new construction. One parking space for each 2 guest accommodations in converted structure.

Charitable or philanthropic institution. See requirement under Section G-2.21(a) and (c)(1).

Child day care facility. For a family day care home or group day care home, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement. The required number of spaces may be allowed on the street abutting the site. For a child day care center, one space for every non-resident staff member in addition to the residential parking requirement if applicable and adequate parking for discharge and pick up of children. In this instance, the average drop off and pick up space required is one space for every six children. Waivers and variances are allowed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Church, synagogue or other place of worship. One parking space for each 4 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided, that the number of spaces thus required may be reduced by not more than 30 percent if the church, synagogue or other place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial or industrial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time of services to make up the additional spaces required. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure located in a commercial or industrial zone which is used for religious purposes, if the existing parking meets or otherwise exceeds the requirements for any commercial or industrial uses allowed in the zone. This requirement does not apply to any existing building or structure which is used for religious purposes, nor to additions, alterations or enlargements of such existing buildings and structures, nor to new buildings on land now improved by a building in use for religious purposes, or land contiguous to such improved land, as of May 1, 1962; nor to any such building or structure for which a valid building permit has been issued prior to such date.

Any place of worship used by a congregation whose religious beliefs prohibit the use of motor vehicles in traveling to or from religious services conducted on their Sabbath and principal holidays shall only be required to provide one space for each 8 persons for whom seating is provided in the main auditorium; provided further, that the spaces thus required do not have to be provided on the building site if such place of worship is located within 500 feet of any public parking lot or any commercial parking lot where sufficient spaces are available during the time or services or other proposed use of the building to provide the spaces required.

Clinic. See “Medical or dental clinic.”

Community center, library, museum, civic club, private club, lodge or similar use. Two and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area.

Country markets. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of area used for interior and exterior retail display sales.

Day care facility for senior adults and persons with disabilities. One space for every 4 non- resident senior adults or persons with disabilities. The Board of Appeals may reduce the number of spaces required in accordance with the special exception provisions of Section 59-G-2.13.

Domiciliary care home. One parking space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Dwelling, carriage house. One space in addition to the required parking for the main dwelling.

Dwelling, multiple-family. For each dwelling unit with no separate bedroom, one space; for each dwelling unit with one separate bedroom, 1 ¼ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 2 separate bedrooms, 1 ½ spaces; for each dwelling unit with 3 or more separate bedrooms, 2 spaces. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33. Not more than 50 percent of the total area of the minimum required side and rear yards shall be occupied by parking spaces, drives, access roads to, from and between such spaces, turn-arounds or other surfaces designed for vehicular use, and no parking spaces or vehicular uses, except entrance drives, shall be located within the minimum required front yard. (See R-H zone for controlling provisions in that zone on parking in yards.) In the R-10 and R-H zones, TOMX Zones, the TSM and TSR zones, and the CBD zones in Section 59-C-6.2, the requirement for each moderately priced dwelling unit, as defined in Chapter 25A of this Code, shall be one-half the number of spaces indicated above.

Dwelling, one-family. Two parking spaces for each dwelling unit; except, that when the slope between the standard street sidewalk elevation at the front lot line and side lot line adjacent to a street, established in accordance with the county road construction code, and the finally graded lot elevation at the nearest building line exceeds, at every point along the front lot line, a grade of 3 inches per foot, such space shall not be required.

Dwelling, semi-detached or two-family. Same as one-family dwelling.

Educational institution, private. One parking space for each employee, including teachers and administrators, plus sufficient off-street parking space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students, plus additional facilities for all student parking.

Farm machinery and supply. For retail sales of farm machinery and supply, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area, unless, in the opinion of the Board of Appeals, the required parking spaces can be reduced without adverse impact on adjoining uses; in no instance can the number of required spaces be less than 2 for each 1,000 square feet of interior and exterior sales area. For an establishment devoted solely to storage and service of farm machinery and supply, see “Industrial or manufacturing establishment or warehouse.”

Funeral parlor. One space for every 25 gross square feet of space in the public rooms (chapel, main viewing parlor, visitation rooms, and any flexible space that can be used as viewing rooms when necessary, such as family rooms), plus one parking space for each employee on the major shift, and one parking space for each vehicle used in connection with the business.

Fourplex. A lot or parcel used for the development of dwellings in this zone shall provide at least 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Fraternity, sorority and dormitory. One parking space for each 2 students residing on the premises in a fraternity or a sorority and 4 students in a dormitory, plus one additional space for each housemother or manager and each employee.

Furniture store. Two parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each employee. This requirement does not apply to the furniture section of a department store or furniture store located in a regional shopping center.

Guest rooms in a country inn. One parking space for each guest room.

Health clubs. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use, except that 3.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is required when located within an office building.

Heliport/helistop (public use). If at ground level, adequate space for off-street parking of at least 15 vehicles. If elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using or working at the facility.

Heliport/helistop (private use). Whether at ground level or elevated, reasonable parking space shall be provided or be available for use as required by the Board of Appeals for the convenience of persons using the facility.

Hospice. One space for each bed, plus one space for every two employees on the largest work shift, plus a space large enough to accommodate an ambulance or delivery vehicle that must be designed so as not to impede normal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Compliance with the minimum parking standards does not presume sufficient parking for this use. The applicant must demonstrate that the parking needs of visitors, staff and volunteers are adequately accommodated. This requirement does not apply to any facility which is used for residential hospice purposes on (date amendment is effective [May 6, 2002]); nor to any hospice care facility for which a building permit was issued before May 6, 2002.

Hospital. One parking space for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area, plus one space for each resident doctor, plus adequate reserved space for visiting staff doctors, plus one space for each 3 employees on the major shift.

Hotel, motel or inn. If located within a central business district or a transit station development area, one-half space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining areas, and similar places of assembly. For other locations seven-tenths of a space for each guest room, plus 10 spaces for each 1,000 gross square feet of area used for ballrooms, private meeting rooms, dining rooms and similar places of assembly.

Housing and related facilities for senior adults or persons with disabilities. Base parking requirements for housing for senior adults or persons with disabilities must be determined in accordance with the location of the property in relation to the Parking Policy Areas approved by the District Council on June 28, 1984, and maintained by the Planning Board. The base parking requirements vary according to the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.

Individual living unit in a personal living quarters (PLQ). One space for each individual living unit, provided that parking for any complete dwelling unit in a personal living quarters building must comply with the standards for a dwelling, multiple-family, as required in this section.

Industrial, manufacturing establishment or warehouse. One and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of total floor area and sufficient area to provide for loading and unloading of trucks.

Medical or dental clinic. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of the gross floor area of the building.

Meeting center. Ten (10) parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for ballrooms and meeting rooms; and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area used for foyers and other space.

Mobile home development. Two parking spaces for each mobile home in the development.

Nursing home. One space for every 4 beds and one space for every 2 employees on largest work shift.

Office, general office, and professional buildings or similar uses. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the parking requirements for office developments contained in Section 59-E-3.2. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3. The calculation of building square footage is based on the sum of the gross areas of the several floors of the building, measured from the exterior faces to the exterior walls or from the center line of party walls, which area shall include cellars or basements but shall not include floor area used for off-street parking.

Office, medical practitioner’s. Not less than 4 parking spaces for each practitioner occupying or using such office.

Office, professional, nonresidential. Five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by medical practitioners and 2.5 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area used by all other professionals. The gross floor area calculation shall exclude storage area, and the attic and cellar areas of the building if not occupied by professional personnel.

Office, professional, other than medical practitioner. Two spaces for each professional person occupying or using such office.

Railroad station, bus depot or other passenger terminal facilities. One hundred parking spaces.

Recreational establishment, commercial, other than a theater, auditorium or stadium. Twelve and five-tenths parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area, except as to racquetball, squash, and handball courts. As to racquetball, squash, and handball courts there shall be 3 ½ parking spaces per racquetball, squash, or handball court.

Regional shopping centers. Five and one-half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable square feet as defined herein. In addition, parking requirements for separate standing office and professional buildings shall be as set forth under the category of this subsection pertaining to office buildings, professional buildings or similar uses. As used herein, “gross leasable square feet” is defined as the total floor area designed for commercial tenant occupancy and exclusive uses, including basements, mezzanines and the upper floors if any, expressed in square feet measured from center lines of joint partitions and exteriors of outside walls. This definition does include banks, furniture stores, and other such activities which are part of a regional shopping center. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces. Not included in this definition are separate standing office or professional buildings.

Restaurant or similar place dispensing food, drink or refreshments. Twenty-five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use within the establishment and 15 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of ground area devoted to patron use on the property outside the establishment. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provision of Section 59-E-3.3.

Retail establishments, auxiliary. Three and one-half spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable space. The base requirement may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions contained in Section 59-E-3.3. Retail establishments must be classified as auxiliary retail uses when located within an office building that contains at least 100,000 gross square feet, contains less than 15 percent of the building’s overall gross square footage, and contains less than 30,000 leasable square feet. Auxiliary retail uses shall not qualify for reductions for shared parking in mixed-use developments or parking lot district facilities.

Retail, general. Commercial establishments devoted to retail sales, merchandising or other similar use, except furniture stores, 5 parking spaces for each 1,000 gross leasable square feet. In accordance with the exception provision of Section 59-E-5.8 all storage space that exceeds 35 percent of the total gross leasable area shall be excluded in calculating the number of required parking spaces.

Self-storage facility. Three (3) spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area of office space associated with the use plus one (1) space per employee, and two (2) spaces for a resident manager. The width of travel aisles for vehicular access and loading and unloading will be subject to the approval of the Director.

Swimming pool, commercial. One parking space for every 4 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time.

Swimming pool, community. One parking space for every 7 persons lawfully permitted in the pool at one time except where such pool is a permitted use pursuant to the provisions of Section 59-C-1.531 or 59-C-1.621, the number and location of parking spaces required shall be determined by the planning board.

Theaters, indoor or legitimate. One parking space for each 4 seats or similar vantage accommodations provided.

Tourist home. One parking space for each guest room or suite.

Townhouse. Two parking spaces for each townhouse. The base requirements may be reduced in accordance with the credit provisions of Section 59-E-3.33.

Editor’s note—In Grand Bel Manor Condominium v. Gancayco, the Court quoted and cited § 59-E-3.7 and analyzed the effect of § 59-G-2.36 in relation to § 59-E-3.7, holding that a waiver of § 59-E-3.7 does not serve as a waiver of § 59-G-2.36.

(Legislative History: Ord. No. 8-55, §§ 10, 11; Ord. No. 8-80, § 2; Ord. No. 8-81, § 16; Ord. No. 9-1, §1; Ord. No. 9-2, § 4; Ord. No. 10-21, § 1; Ord. No. 10-32, § 11; Ord. No. 10-39, § 12; Ord. No. 10-63, § 2; Ord. No. 10-69, § 7; Ord. No. 11-27, § 3; Ord. No. 11-29, § 7; Ord. No. 11-32, § 3; Ord. No. 11-34, § 4; Ord. No. 11-40, § 4; Ord. No. 11-41, § 11; Ord. No. 11-50, § 24; Ord. No. 11-70, § 4; Ord. No. 11-72, §10; Ord. No. 11-73, § 11; Ord. No. 12-1, § 1; Ord. No. 12-8, § 4; Ord. No. 12-49, § 2; Ord. No. 12-50, §2; Ord. No. 12-68, § 4; Ord. No. 77, § 3; Ord. No. 13-12, § 4; Ord. No. 13-21, § 11; Ord. No. 13-46, §8; Ord. No. 13-47, § 11; Ord. No. 13-58, § 4; Ord. No. 13-60, § 2; Ord. No. 14-47, § 1; Ord. No. 15-56, § 4.)

Editor’s note-Section 4 of Ord. No. 11-70 purported to amend § 59-E-3.4. The amendment was actually to this § 59-E-3.7, changing “roadside farm markets” to “country markets.”

In response to my recent post on Donald Shoup’s High Cost of Free Parking, one commenter asked “isn’t the curb thing just regressive taxation, discriminating who can shop downtown by income?”
While the economics of the proposal is straightforward enough, the ethics aren’t. Would performance-based meter pricing hurt the poor?

In my view, the equity of switching to performance parking depends on 1) who’s parking, 2) the costs of underpricing and 3) the result of market prices.

Who’s Parking?

Although the precise profile of parkers depends on the neighborhood and time measured, we know wealthier families own more cars and drive them more often, and low-income households have limited access to cars or sometimes none at all.

According to a government study, nationally roughly 20% of the lowest income households have no car, and that figure is likely much higher for Washington, D.C., where overall 37% of all households has no cars. Furthermore, use of the car is also strongly correlated with income: the highest income households “make about 30 percent more trips, and the average length of those trips is more than 40 percent longer than trips by those in the lowest income class.”

Higher parking prices in Washington, D.C. will have almost no impact at all on 37% of the households without any private vehicles whatsoever, a group that includes many of the city’s poorest.

Costs of of underpricing

In order to consider the true cost of on-street parking today, we must consider not simply the meter price but the costs of searching for a space. These variables are considered in an economic model created by Shoup that seeks to model the decision a driver makes between paying for off-street parking or cruising for a free or inexpensive street space. (Chapter 13, Choosing to Cruise). Without going into details, he shows that cruising for a free space can be analyzed as a rational behavior, but the costs incurred in terms of time and fuel are very real. If the curb spaces are sufficiently congested because of underpricing, the search for parking can cost cruisers significantly – up to or more than the amount of off-street commercial parking. In addition, all the cars circling for parking produces significant negative externalities like pollution and traffic. This means that even cheap meters may not actually mean cheap parking if everyone is forced to hunt for a space.

Furthermore, free spaces are made available randomly to the pool looking for parking at any one time, hardly good approach for a public policy. Scarcity also rewards those with the most time and flexibility to search for parking.

The results of market prices

A second model created by Shoup will help us examine the trade-offs between proximity and price when choosing a space. How do drivers decide what they are willing to pay for parking? While some of his assumptions could be questioned, the model demonstrates that when drivers decide how far from their destination, income is only one of the important variables. He shows how vehicles with multiple passengers, or people in a hurry regardless of income, will impact how much they are willing to pay.

Will this mean that high-income households “monopolize the best parking spaces?” Shoup thinks not: “Many factors other than income also affect the value drivers place on saving time on any particular trip. Lower-income drivers may park at the center when they are in a hurry, while higher-income drivers may park at the periphery and walk when they have plenty of time. … if wealthier drivers do park closer to their destinations they will pay more for their parking, and market-priced parking will thus introduce a progressive charge on the wealthy.”

Market pricing will raise the price paid but slash the cost of waste by encouraging turnover of parking spaces, allowing the same number of spaces to serve more people. Performance parking also has the positive side-effect of easing traffic and helping buses stay on schedule, improving the quality of the service of their riders. This result has been documented for both parking fees and congestion pricing on roads.

While the issue can’t be settled definitively without specific studies of individual neighborhoods, it seems clear the ethics aren’t as clear as we might initially think, and the public as a whole has much to gain from improved management of public parking spaces. Beyond the narrow calculus of economic equity, Shoup believes higher parking prices in neighborhoods will speed re-use of vacant building, stimulate depressed urban neighborhoods, and even re-orient planning towards the needs of neighborhood residents:

The revenue from curb parking will refocus planners’ attention on streets and neighborhoods. Because neighborhoods will have real money to spend and real choices to make, the residents’ preferences will acquire new weight and real community participation will be necessary. Concentrating planners’ attention on the task of improving older neighborhoods may well be one of the new parking paradigm’s most important benefits.(Shoup, 585)

If increased parking revenue captured at the neighborhood level has this effect even at a small level, it seems like a policy that could benefit all residents, regardless of income.

Shoup thinks curb parking is too inexpensive. Rather than making parking accessible, he thinks low prices waste huge amounts of time and resources as motorists cruise for open spots. Raising the cost of curb parking to what is necessary to keep a few spaces open at peak hours will reduce traffic, increase turnover of this scarce resource, and bring in new tax revenue that can be used to directly improve the streets where it is collected. This thesis is creatively explained in this short film produced by New York’s Open Planning project.

Our zoning codes also require a certain number of off-street parking spaces for new buildings. Shoup critiques these requirements as a pseudo-science, complaining they are based on statistically dubious studies measuring “demand” for free parking in suburban locations. The cost of this parking, up to $35,000 per space, is almost never passed along to the parking users. Furthermore, the zoning requires parking to satisfy peak requirements, meaning it sits empty almost the entire year. In the aggregate, Shoup thinks the requirements are a total planning disaster: he argues they encourage auto use, damage the economy, degrade the environment, debase architecture and urban design, burden enterprise, prevent the reuse of older buildings, among a litany of other offenses. In Shoup’s view, “Off-street parking, far more than the interstate highway system, have spurred the dominance of the automobile.”

He concludes that “if cities deregulate off-street parking and charge the right price for curb parking, market forces will improve transportation, land use, the environment, and urban life.” While I think turning the requirements into maximums is a more pragmatic first step, it’s hard to reject his argument our policies should make parking users pay its full cost. Almost three years after its publication, the book’s sales seem strong: it is #2 American Planning Association’s list of bestsellers and among the top 100,000 titles on Amazon, no small feat for a $50 treatise on a mundane aspect of urban policy.

Reading the book inspired me to review what amount of parking region’s zoning codes require. The results of the survey are below, but I should make an important caveat. The codes can be extremely long and complex, making interpreting them difficult. Furthermore, many of the jurisdictions allow developers to reduce these requirements for certain districts of proximity to Metro stations, and almost everything in the zoning code can be negotiated through variances and exceptions. Nonethless, the findings seem to confirm Shoup’s complaint the requirements are inconsistant and excessive, especially if you consider each space required below could require up to 300 square feet of space in a parking structure and cost up to $35,000 or more.

However, in D.C. there is considerable interest in re-evaluating the parking requirements. The city has recently launched a major effort to undergo a comprehensive revision of the zoning code. As part of the process the Office of Planning has organized committees examining each aspect of the code, who will each hold multiple meetings open to the public. The documents used to kick-off the parking committee this week are online, and include an excellent summary of best practices in parking policy by the innovative firm Nelson/Nygaard.

Two upcoming projects in D.C. are also putting parking issues at center stage. The Washington Nationals Ballpark is set to open March 30th, and in response D.C. Councilmember Tommy Wells has proposed an innovative curbside parking management proposal that would implement the sort of policies advocated by Shoup. In Columbia Heights, the massive DCUSA project set to open March 8 and Councilmember Jim Graham recently called several hearings where new policies for the neighborhood were discussed. The brewing events mean 2008 could be the year for parking policy in Washington.