“Parking Rock Star” Donald Shoup Plays Broadway


Early Friday morning, more than 100 transportation experts and advocates descended on the garish hell that is New Times Square to hear a two-hour presentation about parking. In a cozy theater across the street from Dave and Buster’s, UCLA urban planner Donald Shoup held forth on his much-discussed ideas for reforming traffic via "market-based" street parking.

Shoup opened with a joke referencing his own notoriety, quipping, "I was surprised to learn I was a ‘parking rock star.’ Because that’s an oxymoron, like ‘rap music.’" Clunk.

Shoup.jpgHe was on surer footing when sticking to his theories, which are simple on their face: Curbside parking is a valuable resource that cities give away for free, with one result being that drivers will burn fuel — and create traffic — driving around and around looking for free spots rather than paying for off-street lots or taking mass transit.

Shoup’s solution is for cities to install meters that price parking at rates that maximize usage without promoting cruising. The sweet spot, he’s found, is 85 percent occupancy: At that point, there’s always a free space or two on each block, but no more — "almost full all the time, but never totally full." In Redwood City, California, which instituted Shoup’s market-rate parking model, this required the city to tweak hourly meter rates in 25 cent increments in order to find the ideal fee.

While Transportation Alternatives, Shoup’s host for the talk, would prefer to see revenues raised by new meters be funneled into mass transit, Shoup is an advocate of what he calls "parking increment financing:" kick back at least half of the new parking fees to the local business improvement district or a similar entity (in Chicago, they’re called transportation enhancement districts, or TEDs), which can then use them to clean up sidewalks and add other street improvements, winning over local merchants who might otherwise fear that eliminating free curbside parking would cost them business. (It suddenly became clear why a Times Square Alliance honcho had delivered such a glowing introduction to Shoup’s talk.)

Shoup’s vision was of an enticingly free lunch — traffic goes down, parking spaces are easier to find, and your city is brimming with funds for bus shelters and bike racks. But as the Q&A afterwards made clear, there’s plenty of concern remaining about the political realities and unintended consequences of instituting such a plan in a complicated transit ecosystem such as New York’s. One audience member — later identified by another audience member as a Department of Transportation staffer involved in parking issues — slammed Shoup as "elitist" for ignoring the needs of commercial drivers; Shoup called the charge "knee jerk" and insisted he had the "moral high ground," saying most people care more about clean sidewalks than cheap parking.

When another questioner raised the issue of class more gingerly, noting that "there are neighborhoods where it’s hugely complicated to take the subway to the bus" and drivers rely on cruising for spots because they can’t afford lot prices, Shoup replied that his parking plans were "bottom-up" and that neighborhoods would "adopt this policy only if a majority requests it."

Shoup clearly has the ear of both the advocacy community and the transportation powers-that-be — another attendee spotted NYPD transportation chief Michael Scagnelli buttonholing Shoup after the talk. Whether his ideas can gain traction, though, is likely to depend on some of the less-clear effects on the city’s varied constituencies. As the Pay-to-Pray parking revolt of 2005 made clear, New York is a long way from Redwood City.

Parking meter photo: Matt⁵ / Flickr

  • JK

    Two points:

    – Most livable streets advocates (including probably TA)are fine philosophically with the idea of returning parking revenue to neighborhood sidewalk and streetscape improvements. The issue is more a complicated political one. City Hall has to be convinced of a number of things: First, what’s being raised is in fact new revenue and not a redestribution of revenue from the general fund. Second, it is generically OK to create a dedicated revenue stream and this will not lead to a stampede of proposals to create dedicated revenue streams of all kinds. Third, the city agency, contractor, BID or neighborhood/local group getting the money will use it for its intended purpose.

    – Before kicking money back for neighborhood sidewalk improvements, a logical place to spend additional parking revenue is on cashing out government parking placards. So, a cop would give up their permit in exchange for a parking allowance they could either spend paying for parking or pocket.

  • One very worthy organization is the Doe Fund, which takes homeless folks off the streets to go around with a broom and trash can and clean it, provides housing assistance (if not a dorm room in many cases), a job, a chance to learn basic life skills like cooking and helps them find work further up the food chain. I would love if parking fees went to something like that.

  • anon

    When the public, especially non-drivers whose taxes pay for the upkeep of those too-low-priced parking spaces, finally realize that this issue is about freeloaders vs reasonable economics, all traffic-ridden neighborhoods will incorporate market-based pricing for on-street parking.

  • government official

    JK, not mentioned in the presentation summary above is Shoup’s clarification that a municipality would retain revenue equal to the current meter collection. Only the additional revenue would be directed to streetscape improvements (or other publicly acceptable enhancement, I would add. I personally would like to see a more holistic funding stream; e.g.: higher meter fees going towards improved public transportation.)

    Also, the subject of placards did come up. I noticed that Chief Scagnelli left the theater before the Q&A. I wondered if he avoiding being drawn into a public discussion of that issue.

  • JK

    Govt. Yes, your right Shoup does say that only new meter revenue above a certain target would be earmarked for local improvements, — but the mayor/OMB will still covet the money and have a problem with creating dedicated revenue streams. Things also get a little complicated since the city is constantly changing revenue targets for metered spaces and is steadily expanding its commercial parking program, which presumably increases revenue.

    In any event, it seems pretty likely that some kind of Shoupian 15% vacancy target already has enough support within the parts of the CBD covered by the BIDS to happen. In Manhattan’s near future, Shoup’s local revenue return “Sidewalk District” idea could be most important in the neighborhoods adjacent to the BIDS, which have free side street parking: the West and East Sides of CB 4 and CB 6.

  • Jake

    The City also began allowing private businesses to operate restaurantes on city parks by taking a ‘concession’ and promising residents the monies from these groups would fund park improvements and maintenance, and then cut the revenue streams to certain parks, like Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, forcing local neighborhood groups to fund maintenance.

    A more savy approach would be to incrementally raise meter fees over 5-20 years.


Shoup Dogg, Parking Policy Cult Hero, Fills Fordham Auditorium

Click to play Streetsblog’s Donald Shoup theme song:[mp3]shoop30.mp3[/mp3] Spencer Wilking reports: There’s nothing more blessed to the New York City driver than finding an open parking spot. Donald Shoup, professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, would like New Yorkers to reconsider that ideal. The parking policy cult hero addressed a crowd at Fordham’s Pope Auditorium […]

StreetFilms: Interview with Parking Guru Donald Shoup

Donald Shoup on the High Cost of Free Parking Running time: 6 minutes 37 seconds "I don’t see why people have to pay market rents to live in a neighborhood but the cars should live rent-free. In New York you have expensive housing for people and free parking for cars. You’ve got your priorities exactly […]

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 […]

Shoup: Cato HQ the Perfect Lab for Reforming Commuter Parking Subsidies

Last week we published a reply from UCLA planning professor Donald Shoup to Cato Institute senior fellow Randal O’Toole, in which Shoup clarified his positions on parking policy and explained several ways in which government regulations favor the provision of free parking. In response, O’Toole ran this post on the Cato@Liberty blog. Streetsblog is pleased […]

Donald Shoup, an Appreciation

On Tuesday, the news came that after 41 years of teaching at UCLA, Donald Shoup, distinguished professor of urban planning, will retire. For all of us who have had our paths in life profoundly influenced by his research, writing, and teaching on parking and transportation, it’s a good time to reflect. I never got to […]

Shoup to O’Toole: The Market for Parking Is Anything But Free

We’re reprinting this reply [PDF] from UCLA professor Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, to Randal O’Toole, the libertarian Cato Institute senior fellow who refuses to acknowledge the role of massive government intervention in the market for parking, and the effect this has had on America’s car dependence. It’s an excellent […]