The Power of Parking Policy

This is the third in a three-part series on New York City parking policy.

Part 1: The New York City Parking Boom
 
Part 2: Parking: If You Build it They Will Come… in Their Cars

parking3.jpg

Over the course of the last year, New York City’s transportation policy community has spent tremendous time, energy and money pursuing the idea of congestion pricing. For good reason: London showed that congestion pricing works. It reduces traffic while raising money for transit, bike and pedestrian improvements. And it unites a full spectrum of political interests, from lefty environmentalists to rightish business types.

Despite all it has going for it, congestion pricing won’t be easy to make happen. New York City likely does not have the ability to impose congestion pricing without approval from the state legislature. And outer borough politicians insist that they will do everything in their power to prevent it from ever being enacted. In public Mayor Michael Bloomberg has expressed no interest in the idea and many in city government believe that the political cost of congestion pricing is too high — even though polls show that New Yorkers are relatively receptive to the idea.

As the pricing debate simmers on a back burner, transportation policy experts have begun looking more closely at other tools for managing and reducing the choking traffic congestion that one study estimates is costing New York City $13 billion per year. Increasingly, they are turning their attention to the quintessential, neurotic New York obsession — parking. Parking policy, it seems, may be a key to reducing the city’s crushing traffic congestion. 

City Hall can change parking policy without interference from the state legislature. And many of these changes can be made without expensive, time-consuming street redesigns and capital projects. Likewise, changes in parking policy don’t require billions of federal dollars like the Second Avenue Subway.

"It’s something we can control," said Matthew Roth of Transportation Alternatives.

Some things the city could do are simple, like cracking down on government workers who park illegally, or metering parking for city workers, which would raise $46 million annually, according to a study by Bruce Schaller of Schaller Consulting. But there are an increasing number of ambitious programs that could serve as models for New York.

In California, state law requires that certain employers who provide free parking to employees offer them the choice of a cash allowance equal to the market rate of that parking. Copenhagen spent 35 years reducing its total supply of parking by two to three percent annually. Many of the vibrant, thriving public spaces that you see today in Copenhagen were once, simply, parking lots. And many American cities are tinkering wit the idea that the price of parking on the street should be set by the market.

Jeff Zupan of the Regional Plan Association wants to rewrite city zoning restrictions that would put caps on the amount of parking developers can build. The new parking requirements would be based on the availability of mass transit, rather than the somewhat arbitrary minimum levels they are required to meet now. UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup, author of The High Cost of Free Parking, adds that the city should allow parking prices to rise to market rates, rather than requiring developers to build enough parking to keep prices low, which he says "collectivizes the cost of parking because they allow everyone to park free at everyone else’s expense." This, Shoup says, takes away the incentive for individual drivers to save money by driving less. Over the long term, Zupan and Shoup both believe such changes would compel a shift from automobiles to mass transit, helping the city achieve its PLANYC 2030 goals.

Schaller agrees that new parking policies should be explored, but warns against doing so without also investing in mass transit and experimenting with other ways to shift travelers out of their cars. Transportation policy has a lot of moving parts, Schaller says, and putting too much focus on one aspect "overstresses the tool." If you’re not careful you may end up "doing various things to clog up traffic and not accomplish your purpose."

All of this talk is a bit premature for some advocates, who are pressuring city officials to first come up with a detailed, comprehensive inventory of all the parking in the city — something that, remarkably, does not exist today, and is not on the agenda of any city agency. Any aggressive action on parking must be preceded by an effort to understand the specifics of the current situation, said Jon Orcutt of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

As it is right now, "the whole issue of dealing with parking is groping in the dark," he said.

Photo: Zarin/Flickr

  • Angus Grieve-Smith

    “Jeff Zupan of the Regional Plan Association wants to rewrite city zoning restrictions that would put caps on the amount of parking developers can build. The new parking requirements would be based on the availability of mass transit, rather than the somewhat arbitrary minimum levels they are required to meet now.”

    Sounds like a good idea, but it could lead to a dead end. For example, in a neighborhood with lousy mass transit options (let’s say Glendale), there would be relatively high parking requirements, which means that people in that area will continue to drive and to oppose transit expansion.

    A tweak would be to set the parking requirements just a little lower than whatever they think is “necessary,” thus avoiding making it easy to drive. That could backfire, though, if people wind up resenting the city for not making developers provide “enough parking.”

  • Nicolo Macchiavelli

    The development of the West Side Yards, coupled with the extension of the #7 train is paid for by the city (up to the cost over-runs) through Payments in Lieu of Taxes. However, most of that development is going come all packaged up with more parking. Given the proximity of the Lincoln Tunnel and Port Authority there is going to be lots of new congestion in an already congested area. Supposedly Doctoroff has been open to having the city pick up some of the vig on the cost over runs but there are also certain bonding threshold issues. Maybe there could still be a chance to cut down on the parking requirements (fertility drugs for cars) given all of the political-economic flexing that still has to be done on that project.

  • Because the NYC government earns so much revenue from parking tickets (well over $550 million annually), the City may be reluctant to implement Shoup’s concept. One of the main reasons that the amount of parking ticket revenue is so high (this figure does not include towing fines) is because the parking regulations on the street signs are so confusing. People don’t understand, make mistakes and get tickets. If the system changes so that all street parking is metered, there is much less confusion; far fewer parking tickets will be written and the City will collect much less parking ticket revenue. This is of course not a bad thing and Shoup’s ideas do make sense, but lost parking ticket revenue is a likely deterrent to the City adopting his proposal.

    Transportation expert Bruce Schaller made an attempt to address these concerns in an article that he penned for The Gotham Gazette. Schaller extols the virtues of Shoup’s ideas, then counters the parking ticket revenue issue by saying:

    “The concern about fine revenue seems premature. This program would have to be very widely and very successfully implemented before there is any chance that parking reform turns parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do.”

    This seems to be having your cake and eating it, too. Is the idea worth implementing, or isn’t it? If Schaller truly believes that this idea is worth considering in NYC, how can he say, “The concern about fine revenue seems premature”? We must look to the future before implementing any plan for parking reform and clearly, no plan will be implemented unless there is a fair chance that it will be “very successfully implemented”. As for turning “parking enforcement personnel into the mythical Maytag repairman with nothing to do”, if all of NYC’s 300+ parking regulations are reduced to “Metered Parking”, then it is inevitable that there will be far fewer parking tickets written. Again, this is not a bad thing, but the City Government clearly will not favor losing revenue. They won’t come close to making up in parking meter revenue what they lose from parking ticket revenue; this issue must be adequately addressed if this plan is to move forward.

  • P

    Maybe instead of relying on parking revenue the city could begin focusing on collecting revenue from traffic violations.

    The stoplight in front of my apartment is run nearly every cycle. (By cars that are all going at least 40 miles an hour- past schools, parks, and playgrounds no less.)

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

In his "State of the City" speech on Monday, Mayor de Blasio said he'd soon release a plan to address growing congestion in the city. Photo: NYC Mayor's Office

4 Ways the Mayor Can Reduce Congestion Without Congestion Pricing

|
Mayor de Blasio's forthcoming congestion plan won't call for traffic pricing, but the mayor has plenty of other options to reduce traffic congestion. Here are four policies that would provide much-needed congestion relief on NYC streets -- it's difficult to imagine any City Hall traffic reduction initiative that doesn't include some of these ideas.

Paterson Backs Pricing, Introduces Bill in Albany

|
David Paterson is going to do right by his old State Senate district after all. New York’s new governor settled any doubts about his position on congestion pricing this afternoon, introducing a bill that follows the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. The Daily Politics has the scoop: "Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns […]

Congestion Pricing Questions the Mayor Will Need to Answer

|
New York State Assembly Member Deborah Glick represents Chelsea, Greenwich Village, Tribeca and a good piece of Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. Encompassing the Holland Tunnel, Canal Street and a section of the Westside Highway, her district suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in all of New York City. Transit-rich and offering some of […]

Pricing Friends and Foes Find Common Ground in Shoup

|
Matthew Schuerman at the Observer reports that New York City congestion pricing opponents sought to commission UCLA urban planning guru Donald Shoup to do a study of New York City’s parking policies. Shoup declined their request. Presumably, congestion pricing opponents hoped a Shoup study might show that New York City could solve some portion of […]

Pricing Advocates Call for Impact Study and New Parking Policies

|
Congestion pricing advocate Carolyn Konheim and consulting partner Brian Ketcham are advising the Bloomberg administration to drop its resistance to a congestion pricing Environmental Impact Study. The two say a study is needed to head off "likely 11th hour litigation" aimed at stopping the three-year pilot program from taking effect, a possibility Streetsblog alluded to […]