Parking Permit Hikes: Needed but politically perilous

While my sense is that the introduction of proposed increases in the residential parking permit fees hasn't been handled well, the amount of pro-owner parking buzz has been considerable, although not surprising.

A parking permit on a windshield of a car in NW Washington on Thursday. The city is looking to limit the number of residential parking permits and raise fees for parking cars in D.C. Jay Westcott/Examiner.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but a metered parking space in a commercial district (albeit not a direct comparison) provides $1,800/year in revenue. A parking pass at the average parking structure downtown for one month probably costs $200. An uncovered parking space on private property sells for upwards of $30,000.



The public space belongs to the entire city, not just to automobile owners. The cost for maintaining fine streets is greater than the piddling amount that people pay for parking permits right now. The articles published thus far said the City yields something like $1.1 million annual from these fees. That's nothing, and far less than what the spaces are worth.

Cities like San Francisco have 16% of their public space tied up in parking spaces on the street. For other cities it's as much as 33%.

Neal Peirce has reported Brookings results that find that only 50% of the cost of roads is borne by drivers. The other 50% is paid for by everybody. This is one of those instances where increasing residential parking permit fees is a good thing to discourage multiple cars/household, to encourage transit and car sharing alternatives, and to recover more of the costs of servicing road space that functions as a series of virtual private parking lots. (See this column, from 2003, "GAS TAX HIKES: NEEDED BUT POLITICALLY PERILOUS.)

Frankly, I think the proposed legislation was weak in that the rates should also vary by size of car--that smaller cars like the Mini get discounts and larger cars like SUVs pay even more than the proposed increases before City Council.

Shouldn't this car owner be rewarded with a reduced charge for a parking permit?
Compared to the owner of this car? Hot town Hummer in the City... AP photo.

Upwards of 40% of DC residents do not own cars. It is the tyranny of the majority that keeps yielding to the demands of automobile owners for unfettered subsidy of their personal choices.

While I don't see the likelihood of City Council exercising leadership on this issue, raising residential parking permit fees is a step in the right direction.

From "Council mulls raising parking permit fees--Residents: It won't help" from the Examiner:

Capitol Hill resident Mark Eckenwiler said the problems lie elsewhere. "This is attempting to solve the wrong problem," he said. "This is discouraging and charging residents extra money while it will have no effect on the parking problems."Eckenwiler said he sees dozens of cars, most with out-of-state license plates, using visitor permits for as long as six months. The permits are typically good for a maximum of two weeks. Many getting visitor permits are residents who do not want to register their vehicles because of significant car insurance increases.

While I have great respect for people like Mark Eckenwiler, he is arguing a completely different point. Yes, raising the residential permit fees won't prevent out-of-area parking in neighborhoods. But that has nothing to do with this proposal, which is connected to getting car owners to pay for more of the costs that they are currently inflicting on the general fund and on residents that don't own cars.

Index Keywords: parking; car-culture