The debate about whether there should be a fee to park one’s car in public space has been reignited – in these dog days of summer – by a Radio-Canada piece that summarises some of Professor Donald Shoup’s findings. In a nutshell, these findings reveal how much urban space is devoted to parking, how much it costs municipalities to maintain this space, and emphasises the many ills (such as heat-island effects, opportunity costs, and so on) of excessive parking space.
The problem with these findings is that they are used by anti-car advocates as evidence that street-parking should no longer be free. Thus, if you live in a walk-up apartment and do not have private parking space, you should face a bill of $1200 a year.
Shoup’s findings are also used by free-market enthusiasts as evidence that user-fees are needed. Since parking is a scarce good, then user-fees can apportion its use and recover costs for the municipalities.
Anti-car activists do not seem too bothered that such a parking fee will principally hit people of lower means.
Free-market enthusiasts no doubt reason that getting people of lower means out of the way will allow roads to be occupied by their rightful users, those who can pay for them.
Cars are a bane, but there is (for now) no alternative
The underlying problem is that, in North America (and many other societies) there is no alternative to the car at present. A car is often required to get to work (especially suburban manufacturing and warehouse jobs, and atypically scheduled health, cleaning and security jobs), shop, get children to activities, and, also, to escape from the city for an afternoon in the countryside.
A regressive approach
For many people, a car is not a luxury: it is a necessary expense that allows them to balance work, shopping, childcare, leisure and housing costs. So, slapping an extra $1200 a year onto the cost of ownership – a cost that will only hit those without a suburban driveway, a penthouse garage, or a valet – is socially regressive, and will be politically unpopular. Its unpopularity will not be because this is an environmental policy, but because it is a socially regressive policy that looks and smells like a tax on those who can’t afford a garage.
Gentrification
People choose where to live: the availability of parking is an important factor. Those who can live without a car (I salute you–a personal choice, not easy and not available to all given our current transport system), and those who can afford to pay parking fees, will live in neighbourhoods where fees prevail. The others will weigh costs and benefits (which include being able to receive guests who drive), and some will choose boroughs or municipalities where owning a car is less expensive and parking less onerous..
So, parking fees will contribute to gentrification.
Shopping centre parking
Shopping centre parking, a key issue raised by Shoup, is on private property. So pricing these spaces is either a business decision (if it is a choice made by the owner) or passing-on a parking tax (if such a tax is imposed by the municipality).
If it is not a business decision, such fees will have a detrimental effect on those shopping centres for which there is no realistic possibility of public-transport access.
Some other approaches to pricing on-street parking and getting users to pay
Having said all of this, I am not against the idea of discouraging car use and ownership. I am, however, aware of its social implications and of the quasi-necessity (given our infrastructure and current mobility systems) of having access to a car.
As Jérôme Laviolette has pointed out, many households have two or more cars. Furthermore, cars have been getting bigger and heavier (thus damaging roads more).
Five actions could be taken to acknowledge the motivations of anti-car activists (who make many good points) and proponents of user-pay (who also make some good points).
1- Systematically implement residential parking permits in residential areas.
2- For each civic address, allow one small car free on-street parking (e.g. less than 1300kg – a Hyundai Venue weighs about 1200kgs, with maybe a 1500kg limit for EVs).
3- For subsequent vehicles, and for vehicles above the weight limit, charge an on-street parking fee.
4- For commercial streets with good public transport access (‘good’ needs to be defined) charge high rates for on-street destination parking. Road access to these destinations could also be curtailed, further inciting people to use alternative modes of transport.
5- For commercial streets without good public transport access, charge low rates for on-street parking (but fees are necessary so that spaces are not hogged).
Exceptions may be envisaged for people with recognized mobility issues.
Under proposals such as these, all households, rich or poor, can park one small vehicle on-street: this acknowledges the necessity, for many people, of having a car to effect basic tasks. It also encourages smaller vehicles–-a Suburban or a Maserati are not necessary for basic mobility. It will also encourage people to think carefully about having a second, or a larger, vehicle: if they so choose, then they will pay for it (user-pays).
These proposals also distinguish between destination parking and on-street residential parking, whilst further acknowledging that some destinations do not have alternative means of access.
To conclude
Like it or not, having access to a car is—in our current society—a basic capability. It would be socially regressive and disruptive to many activities if less wealthy households (who already struggle with the expense of owning a car) were priced out.
Thus, proposals for making users-pay (whether motivated by environmental or economic reasoning) should acknowledge the problems inherent in an across-the-board approach.
A progressive approach, which recognizes that most households *need* one car (but which also recognizes that they can get by without large, or multiple, cars) is preferrable to a blanket fee.
Richard Shearmur 