New strategies for parking and curbside management

If you look at this article I referenced the other day, "The Dutch government takes a stand -- against cars, for bikes," it is quite challenging to the automobile-centric parking orientation of today's planning and zoning polices in the United States. It was a shock to me...

DC1974 sends us a link to a piece in San Francisco Chronicle about a change to a more market-oriented regime for managing parking there, "S.F. plans market rates for prized parking spaces." From the article:

City officials hope by early next year to start a two-year pilot project that would radically change the way people park in San Francisco - marrying high-tech gadgetry and a free-market philosophy to better manage traffic congestion and to increase collections from meters.

"We're looking at actually pricing a parking space like housing - let the market dictate the price," said Sonali Bose, chief financial officer for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. In the idea's simplest application, people would have to pay more to park where demand for spaces is high.

The problem with doing this locally is that there aren't the same policies applied region-wide, putting all places on the same footing.

One of the big problems with the current proposals for raising fares for the WMATA system is that serious differences exist amongst the jurisdictions in how transit is used. DC has far more transit-reliant people and more transit users generally than the suburbs. Few of DC's Metro stations (Rhode Island, Brookland, Fort Totten, and Takoma) have WMATA-controlled parking lots associated with the station.

Suburban stations (not in Arlington) have big parking lots. It makes sense for a transit system to charge more for parking, because providing lots is expensive and of lesser importance compared to maintaining overall transit use.

The point of policy is to hurt the least number of people and to hurt least those who can afford it least. More people use the transit system in the city and the inner ring suburbs, and we are subsidizing the people from farther out.

Instead, costs should be better balanced. To use people's marginal cost arguments, the marginal cost of serving a car-based commuter parking at a Metro station is greater than the cost of serving closer in transit riders. Charges should reflect this fact.