Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Donald C. Shoup
Reprint
UCTC No. 351
@ Universityof California
TransportationCenter
108NavalArchitectureBuilding
Berkeley,California 94720
Tel: 510/643-7378
FAX:510/643-5456
Donald C. Shoup
Departmentof UrbanPlanning
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA90095-1656
Reprinted from
Journal of Planning Education and Research
vol. 17, pp. 3-20 (1997)
UCTCNo. 351
TheUniversityof CaliforniaTransportation
Center
Universityof Californiaat Berkeley
The High Cost of Free Parking
DonaMC. Shoup
The air wasstilk the street wasemptyexcept fbr the line of hugecars parked
along the curb, gliuering and grinning with chromeand polish and enameL ABSTRACT
Paul had noticed already that in Los Angelesautomobileswere a race apart, Urbanplannerstypically set minimum parking
requirements to meetthe peakdemand for
almostalive° The city wasfull of their hotels and beamyshops, their restaurants
p~kingat eachland use, withoutconsidering
and nursing homes--immense,expensive structures where they could be parked either the pricemotoristspayfor parkingor the
or polisheo£fed or cured of their injuries. Theyspoke, and hadpets--stuffed cost of providingthe requiredparkingspaces.
dogs and monkeyslooked out of their rear windows,toys and good-luckcharms Byredudngthe marketprice of parking,
minimum parkingrequlreraenuprovide
hungabove their dashboards,and fur mils wavedj~omtheir aerials. Their
subsidiesthat inflate parkingdemand,~ndthis
horns sangin varied voices .... fewpeoplewerevisible. The automobiles inflared demand is then wedto set minimum
outnumberedthem ten to one. Paul imagineda tale in which it would be parkingrequirements.Whea consideredas an
graduallyrevealedthat these automobileswerethe real inhabitants of the city, a hnpactfee. minimum parkingrequiremen~
can increasedevelopment costs by morethan
secret master race which an~kept humanbeings ~r its owngreater conve-
10time~the impactfees for ~ o~erpublic
nience, oraspets (Lurie 1986, 7, 232). purposescombined. Eliminatingrain/mum
park~grequirements wouldreducethe cost of
Urban planners often ask questions about parking requirements. The Planning urbandevelopment° improveurbandesign,
reduceautomobiledependency, andreswain
Advisory Service of the AmericanPlanning Association (1991, 1) reports timt
urbansprawl.
"receives hundreds of requests each year about offustreet parking requirements for
different land uses--in fact, we receive more requests year after year on this topic
than on any other." Yet, to my knowledge, urban planning education offers
students no instruction in howto set parking requirements.
Urban planning textbooks offer no help in learning to set parking requirements.
Consider the four editions of Urban Land Use Planning by F. Stuart Chopin and his
coauthors (Chapin 1957, 1965; Chopin and Kaiser 1979; Kaiser, Godschalk, and
Chapin 1995). This distinguished text is considered the "bible" of urban land use
planning, yet no edition mentions parking requirements. Neither do leading
textbooks on urban transportation planning, such as Dickey (1983), Hanson
(1995), Meyer and Miller (1984), and Papacostas and Pr~wedouros (1993).
Planning education seems to ignore parking requirements.
I will argue that parking is the unstudied link betweentransportation and land
use. Urban planners have madeserious mistakes in dealing with parking, and I will
showthat these mistakes have distorted the markets for both transportation and
land. I will conclude with a proposal to improve planning for parking, transporta-
tion, and land use.
Planners have diagnosed the parking problem in a way that makes it expensive to
solve. Understanding the problem as too few parking spaces, planners require DonaMC Shoupis a professorof urban
planning
and~hedirectorof the Imt#uteof
developers to provide more parking. But if the problem is too manycars rather than
Transportation
Studiesat theSchoolof Pubfic
too few parking spaces, minimumparking requirements make the original problem Po~cyandSocialResearch,Univenityof
even worse. The problem, however, is neither a shortage of parking nor an excess of Califbrnia,LosAngeles;slmup@ucl~
edu.
PeakParking
Spaces
Occupied
vs. m0ms
Ona weekday
PARKINGGENERATIONRATES
Average Rangeof Standard Numberof AverageNumber
of
Rate Rates Deviation Studies Rooms
DATAPLOTANDEQUATION
CAUTION:
USECAREFUU.Y--LOW
~ AND
SAL4LL
SAMPLE
SIZE
130.,
0
120-
11o 0
0
0
leo
rO
~L
O0
0 9o=
Z
8o-
il
7o=
60-
0
,50 ! m i I i
lOO 120 140 180 180
200 220 240
X = NUMBER
OFROOMS
FigureI. Parkin~generationby
datapo~ts
o Actu~ Fdted
Curve non-convention hotels. Source:
F~ed
Curve
Equation:
P= 0.33(x)
+36.0 Institute of Transportation
R2¯ 0.088 Engineers(198Z 44).
6 Shoup
urbandevelopment’s capacityto accept all telephonecalls structure contains750spaces, it addedonly550spacesto the
withoutcreating chronicbusysignals, plannersrequire each parkingsupply. Theconstructioncost was$10.5 million (ha
new building to provide a minimumnumberoftdephone I994dollars). Therefore,eachspaceaddedto the parking
lines to handlethe expectedpeaknumber of calls. supply cost $19,000($I0,500,000divided by 550spaces).
Toset minimum telephone requirements,planners consult Calculatingthe cost per spaceaddedby a parkingstructure
a "call generationrate" manual.Plannersset specific tdephone implicitly accountsfor the opportunitycost ofhndby
requirementsfor hundredsof individual land uses without assumingthe structure’s site couldotherwisebe usedfor
consideringthe cumulativeeffects of the wholesystemof surfaceparking.In this calculation,the cost of landfor a
requirements.6 Minimum telephonerequirementsdiffer wildly parkingstructure is the number, not the value, of surface
amongcities, with no explanationsaskedor given. parkingspaces removed by the structure. Therefore,the
Thefederal governmentinadvertently spurs peak-hour marketvalue of land does not determinethe cost per parking
calling by exdudingemployer-paidtelecommudng subsidies spaceaddedby the structure, and wecan meaningfully
from employees’taxable income.Then,attemptingto reduce comparethe cost per parkingspace addedby parkingstruc-
solo telecommuting at peakhours, the federal government 7tures built at different locafonsandtimes.
heavily subsidizeslocal mailservice, spendingmoreandmore
[] Tim COSTP~ PARKING
SpAC~ADDED
to carry a shrhakingshare of all communication. A telephone
demandmanagement (TDM)industry springs up. Little is known about the cost per parkingspaceaddedby
Attemptingto reduce congestionduring peak hours, parkingstructures, perhapsbecausecomparativedata havenot
planners exemptthe downtown from telephone requirements. beenavailable. Fortunately,suchdata are availablefor 12
Downtown developersprovide flee calling anyway,because parking structures built on the UCLA campusbetween1961
ampleflee calling is availableeverywhere else. In desperation, and1991.Theconstructioncontractsfor all the structures
planners imposedowntown telephone caps. werecompetitivelybid, so the cost recordsare accurateand
The complications and expense are enormous.Now detailed, includingthe "soft" costs of planninganddesign.
imaginethat minimum telephonerequirementsalso inflate Usingthe methoddescribedabove, I haveestimated the cost
housingprices, burdenenterprise, and encourageurban of parkingspacesaddedby these twelveparkingstructures.
sprawl.Excessivetelephoneuse pollutes the air, depletes TheUCLA ParkingServiceis one of the largest single-site
natural resources, and risks global warming.Theproblemsare parldng systemsin the nation, with 16,083parkingspacesin
insoluble. swacturesand 2,591 surface parkingspaces.
In reality, no oneadvocatesubiquitouscollect telephone Table1 showsthe estimatedcost per parking space added
calls, but motoristsdo parkflee for 99percentof all automo- by each parking srrucrure3 Thefirst twocolumnsshowthe
bile trips. Minimum parking requirementshaveshort- parking structure’s nameand year built. Column 3 showsthe
drcuitedthe price systemin the marketsfor both transporta- number of spacesin the structure. In total, 16,083structured
tion and land, and they have created manyunintended,but parking spaces were built. Column4 showsthe numberof
not unforeseeable,consequences.American transportation and sunCace spaceslost as a result of buildingthe strucrure. 9 In
land use wouldlookvery different todayif parkinghadalways total, 2,992surface spaceswerelost. Column 5 showsthe
beenpricedto coverits cost. numberof parkingspaces addedby each structure, obtained
by subtracting the numberof surface spaceslost fromthe
[] HowMUCH
DoEs A P~GSI’ACXCOST? numberof spaces in the structure. Column6 showsthe
Tointroducecost considerationsinto planningfor parking~ original cost of each structure. In total, UCLA spent $111
we can start by asking, "Howmuchdoes a parking space million to build these twelveparking structures. Column 7
cost?" Thisquesdonhas no simpleanswer,in part becausethe convertseachstructure’s original cost into dollars of 1994
cost of land for a parkingspacedependson its location. There purchasingpowerby adjusting for constructioncost inflation
is one case, however,in whichit is possibleto makecost since the structure wasbulk3° In 1994dollars, UCLA spent
comparisons.Whendeciding whetherto build a parking $217million to build these parkingstructures. Column 8
structureon a site previouslyusedfor surfaceparking,wecan showsthe original cost per spaceaddedby each parking
ask howmuchthe structure will cost to build, and howmany structure. Column 9 converts this cost into 1994dollars and
parkingspacesit will add. In this context,the relevantquestion answers the question, "Howmuchdoes each added parking
is, "How muchwill eachaddedparkingspacecon?". space cost?" For the 13,091 spaces addedbetween1961and
Becausethe land devotedto the structure’s footprint could 1991, the averagecost was $16,600per parking space
otherwisebe usedfor surfaceparldng,a parkingstructure adds ($217,091,452divided by 13,091).
fewerspacesthanit contains.Toillustrate the calculationof Figure 2 showsthe cost per space addedby each parking
cost per spaceadded,considera 750-spaceparkingstructure structure, and it reveals a striking pattern. Theaveragecost
built on the UCLA campusin 1980. The structure was built of structures built in the 1960swas $12,400per space
on a site that had provided200surface spaces. Althoughthe added, whilethe averagecost of structures built since I977
TheHighCostof FreeParking 7
Average
1961-1991 1,340 249 .1,091 $ 9,27g,000 $18,091,000 $ 8,500 $16,500
Average
1961-1969 1,709 346 1,363 $ 3,309,000 $16,855,000 $ 2,400 $12,400
Average
1977-1991 972 153 8t9 $15,248,000 $19,327,000 $18,600 $23,600
$19,200
$20,000
$14,oo(}
$15,000$12,800 $12,400
$’12~oo
$112oo
$9,800
$10,000
$ 5,000
$ 0
1961 1963 1984 1966 1967 1969 1977 1980 1983 1990 1990 1991
Yearstructurewasbuilt
muchparking spaces cost, and therefore of howmuch on the manyother dimensionsof parking that affect the
parkingrequirementscost. If such studies havebeendone,I public: curb cuts, landscaping,layout, location, parking
have beenunable to find them. guidance,pedestrian access, provisions for the handicapped,
Evenif parkingspaces elsewherecost only half as muchas setback, signage, stormwaterrunoff, and visual impact. In
calculated here, minimum parking requirementsstill raise other words,plannerscan focus on the quality of parking,
the cost of development and reduce the cost of owningcars. not the quantity. Properly pricing curb parking and
This soundsunwise, and it is. Minimum parking require- eliminating minimum parking requirementswill greatly
mentsare a hiddentax on developmentto subsidize cars. If improveurbantransportation, land use, and life.
urban planners want to encouragehousing and reduce
Author’sNote:I wouldBketo thank j~CCalofi ReneeFortier, Kate Lennart~
traffic, whytax housingto subsidizecars?
andJack Schwabof UCLA TramportationServices for their cooperationin
Myaim in calculating the cost of parking mayseemmore proowh’ng data. I woulda~olike to thankArthur Bao,DanielBenson,Aaron
critical than constructive. Informationon cost does not help Bernardin,CharlesBoldon,Jeffrey Brawn,LelandBurns,F. Stuart Chopin,
planners in setting parking requirementsbecameplanners Joy Chen,Peter Clark, CharlesConnerly,PaulCurcio, DanietFrakes~W~lliam
rarely considercost in setting parkingrequirements. Francis,Jesse Glazer,PriyaGirithankar,Josl Gdraez-lbd~e’~ PeterGordon,
Stanley Hart, Scan Heron,ThomasHiggim,Jack Hirthleifer, KathleenHiyaki,
Nevertheless,the high cost office parking should provoke
MaryAnnJones, EugeneKim, DannyKrouk.Trent Lethco, Herbert Levinson,
analysts to examinethe two strange assumptions--that Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Kurt Luhnen,GerardMiMner,JamesOrtner,
parkingis free to motoristsand that the cost of providing WrginiaPark.t, DonPickvel~WilliamPitkin, Randall Pozdena,Neal
required parking is irrdevantmlyingbehind the question Richman,Timothyt~o~ John Shaw, Patricia Shaup, Brian Taylor, Roy
practicing plannersask, year after year, moreoften than any Young,MartinWachs,RichardVHllron,and three anonymous rqCereesfor their
manyhelpful suggesuans.I amgrateful to the UnitedStates Departmentof
other: Howmanyparkingspaces should we require? Transportationand the Univemityof Cah’fornutTramportauon Centerfor
Minimum parking requirements have imposedplanners’ flnanciMsupport.
judgmentsover an important link betweentransportation
and land use. I havetried to showthat the planners’
judgmentsare profoundlymistaken. Historian Daniel
Boorstin (1962, 259) says, "To knowour disease,
m Arr~D~
discoverwhatwesuffer from,mayitself be the only possible
cure." Misunderstanding the disease, planners havedisas- Land Value Implied by Construction Cost per Parking
trously misdiagnosedthe parking problemas not enough Space Added
parking spaces, and have prescribed minimum parking
requirementsas the cure. I havearguedthat the disease is The construction cost per space addedby a parking
ubiquitousfree parking. structure reveals the break-evenland value at whichbuilding
Free curb parkingis the tail that wagsthe dogof mini- a parking structure becomescost-effective. Table1 shows
mumparking requirements. In turn, minimumparking the construction cost per space addedby each of the 12
requkementsbased on free parking have dangerously parking structures built at UCLA between196I and 1991.
distorted the marketsfor both transportation and land. The Table7 uses these estimated costs per space addedto
distortions created by minimum parking requirements thus calculate the break-evenland value (in 1994dollars) implied
stem from the initial public mismanagement of curb by the decisionsto build the structures.
parking. Planningfor parking needsa paradigmshift, from In Table7, the impliedland value per surface spacelost
off-street parkingrequirements(whichmisallocate scarce for each structure (Column 3) is the sameas the structure’s
resources and produceurbansprawl) to pricing curb parking cost per parking space added(Column2). Thesetwo figures
(whichcan allocate resourcesefficiently and producepublic are equal becausethe break-evenland value equatesthe cost
revenue). of addingspaces by building a structure to the cost of
Minimum parking requirements work against almost adding spaces by using moreland for surface parking.
every goal of urbanplanners--exceptthe goal of preventing Dividingthe break-evenland value per surface parking
parkingspillover. Theyincrease the cost of urbandevelop- space by the numberof square feet per parking space gives
ment, degrade urban design, burdenenterprise, promote 3s
the more common measureof land value per square foot.
automobiledependency,and encourageurban sprawl. If Column4 showsthese breakoevenland values (expressed in
curb parking wereproperly priced, the marketcould easily 19945).
regulate the numberof parking spaces. Eliminatingmini- In the 1960s, the break-evenland value implied by the
mumparking requirements wouldreduce the cost of urban decision to build the structures rangedfrom $30to $43 per
development,improveurban design, unburdenenterprise, square foot. Since 1977, the break-evenland value implied
reduce automobiledependency,and restrain urban sprawl. by the decision to build the structures rangedfrom$58to
I do not advocateceasingto plan for parking. Instead of $80 per square foot.
regulating the numberof parking spaces, planners can focus Howdo land prices near UCLA comparewith the break-
TheHighCostof FreeParking 17
adding more spaces at a high marginal cost and (2) then ENRConstruction Cost Index for Los Angeles in 1994was only 15
raising all prices to cover the resulting deficit. The price percent abovethe medianConstructionCost Index for the 20 cities.
12. In case studies of suburbanofl~ce devdopmenrs in SouthernCalifornia,
charged for parking was always far bdow what was necessary
Willson(1995, 39) found "the averagecombinedland and construction
to finance new capacity. Because every new parking cost for structure pzrkingin the casestudysites was~ $12,300per space.
structure was subsidized, every new parking structure led to This cost is aknostidentcal to the averagecost of $12,400per parkhag
4° spaceaddedby the suburban-styleparking structures built at UCLA in
an increase in all parking prices.
the 1960s. Buildinga newsuburban-styleparking structure at UCLA
m/ghtstill cost only $12,400per parkingspaceadded.
13. Damfor the average price of a newcar are taken from the AAMA Motor
R NOTF.S VehicleFv.,’ta andFigures~93andfromearlier editionsof the same
publication.
1. In a surveyof phnningdirectors in 144SouthernCalifornia cities, 14. In the 1960s,the cost of a newparkingspaceaveraged73 percent of the
Richard Willson (1996) asked howthey established minimum parking price of a newcar. Parkingspaces haveremainedthe mmae (or become
requirements.The most frequent responsewas "su~eynearbycities," smaller) since the 1960s,whilethe quality of newcars has improved
and the second most frequent response was ~ITEHandbooks." significandy, but a newparking space morethan doubledin cost when
2. For all automobiletrips madeon the previous day, the 1990 compared with the price of a newear.
NationwidePersonal Transportation Survey (NPTS)asked 48,000 15. Varyingthe assumptionsabouta parking structure’s hcetpanandthe
~
respondents,"Did youpay for parking during~ayparr of this trip? interest r-~e will affect the equivalentmonthly capital cost per parking
Ninety-ninepercent of the 56,733responsesto this quesdonwere space.For example, witha 4 percentinterest rate, a 30-yeaxlife raises the
"No."This question wasasked only for automobiletrips that did not monthlycost per spaceto $113,whilea 100-yearlife reduce*it to $80.
end at home,so free parkingat homedid not bias this response Witha 50-yearlife, a 3 percent interest rate reducesthe monday cost
upward. per spaceto $76,whilea 5 percentinterest rare increasesit to $107.
3. "Parking capac/ty" is not a whollyunambiguous concept. Valet 16. This figure e~udesthe cost of $3 per spaceper monthfor enfarcement,
parking and stack parking can increase capacity by parkingcars in whichis ~ocatedto a sepia’ate budget.It also excludesthe overhead
tandemandin ~_cces~__ aisles, thus substitutinglabor for landa~adcapital administrativecust of the ParkingService.
in providing parking spaces. Requirementsfor a minimum numberof 17. Va~htedand employer-paidparking reduce the price of parkhagto zero
parkingspace~eliminatethe option to substimrelabor for land and for manydrivers. Therefore,the high postedprices for parkingha
capital in providing whatis ultimately consumed,whichisparked-car- downtown areas are evidencemoreof the cost of provldingparking than
hog~, of the price that drivenpay for it.
4. Four observations mayseemtoo few to estimate a parking generation 18. Revenuebondsthat finance parking structures at UCLA bear interest
rate, but half of the ITEparkinggenerationrates are basedon four or rates of 6.1 percent, 8.25percent, and 7.74 percent, and a variable rate
fewerobsen,-aions. that can float between4 percent and9 percent. Theseare all utx-exernpt
5. Withfree parking, the locations that motoristsvisit mustfinance the intesest rates; tar.abh bondsissued to finance commer~ parking
cost of providingthe parking. Withcollect telephonecalls, the structures will bearhigher interest rates. Revenuebondsare securedby
locationscalled mustfw.a_qcethe cost of telephonecalls. Because the revenuesof the endre parkingsystem(includingsurface spaces), nor
parking is free for 99 percent ofaUautomobiletrips in the United by the re,~muesof the parucuhrparkingstructure financed by a bond.
States, it is as if99 percamtof all telephonecalls wereto 800numbers. Thus, the revenuebondscan be a safe investmentfor the lender evenff
6. PAS(1991) giv~ the parking requirementsthat have been specified for the investmentha a newparking smacmre is risky for the Parking
bait shops,diet clinics, houseboats,iu~/ards, landfills° kicksmitbs, Service. Theappropriate mkpremiumfor investmentha a single
pawnshops, sawmills, stockyards, taxi stands, and.168othet had uses. structureis thereforehigherthanimpliedby the interest rates onexisting
For example,one city’s park/ngrequirementfor a taxi scrod is "one ParkingService bonds.
spacefor each empire/coon the largest workingshift, plus one space 19. Theaveragecost of $150per squarefoot refea’s to C.hssA, sted-fra~ed
per taxi, plus sufficient spares to aceommodare the hrgest numberof office buildings.This figure includes constructioncost, tenant
visitors that maybe expectedat any one free" (PAS1991, 25). kaprovement costs, and "sofCcosts such as fu’hanc.ing,insurance, and
7. Becausea parkingspaceis a welt-definedunit of real estate, and readestate taxes duringconstruction,but excludesthe cost of parking.
becausethe cost per space addedby a parkingstructure does not This figure was mppliedby the Los AngelesCountyAssessor. The tom1
indudethe marketvalue of had for the structure’s footprint, the cost cost per squarefoot, includingthe cost of four parkingspacesper 1,000
per space addedby a parking swactureshould vary less among squarefeet, is $244.40($150+ $94.40). Thecost of parkingis
differeur locationsthan do mostother real estate costs. pemmtof the total construction cost ($94.40 div/ded by $244.40).
8. Oneatypical structure is excludedfromthe list. TI’~ "detnoumable" 20. In 1992Bev~ b" Hi~shifted its in-l/en feesto a uniform scheduleof fees
structure was prefabricated and intended for removal(and rea~embly that dependonly on the project’s location.
elsewhere)at a later date. It wasplacedon a portion of Lot 32, remote 21. In a surveyof morethan 1,000residents whol/re near properties
from the maincampus,and its appearancewouldnot be acceptable on damagedby the riots, the overwhdmmg request was for grocery stores
the maincampus.Lnregard to its location, BobHopesaid, "It takes (ComumetQuest1995).
four years to get throughUCLA, or five if youpark in Lot 32." 22. The 1990NPTSreports the distribution ofvehide ownershipby
9. Surface parking lots ar UCLA occupya total of 851,725square feet of householdincome(Pisarski 1995). The 1990Ceaxsnsrepor~ the
had and contain 2,591parking spaces, for an averageof 329 square distribution of householdsthat do not owna car (Phamki1996).
feet per surfacespace(including~cccsslanes). Therefore,each 23. Pim~ki(1996, 32-33) reports that in the 1980sthe numberof vehicles
structure’s footprint wasdividedby 329squarefeet to estimate the ha the UmtedStates increased by 23 million while the numberof
numberof surface spaceslost. Nosurface spacesare assumedto be lost householdshacte~sedby 11 million, ~ad that there are nowmore
for undergroundparking structures. veh/des than licensed dtvers. Estimating howminimum parking
10. Toestimate the in~¢ase ~nthecost of construction since each parking requirementsnowincrease the parking supply abovewhat individua~
structure wasbuilt, the 20-city averageof the ENR ConstructionCost developersvoluntarily providewill seriously underestimatehowthe
Index for June 20, 1994, was divided by the average ENRConstruc- wholesystemof rninimurnparking requirementshas increased the total
tion Cost Index for the year ha whichthe parkingstructure wasbuilt. parking supply above what an unregulatedmarket wouldprovide.
Tbls ratio wasthen multiplied by the origiral construct/oncost to 24. In LOsAngeles,for example,the Westwood V’dhgeSpecific Plan state,,
yield the construction cost expremed in dollars of 1994purcb.mhag "Ira project results in the removalof anyparkingspaceswhichexisted at
poweg. the methis Ordinancebecameeffective and whichdo not serve an
I I. The high cost of construction ha LosAngdescan explain only a small ~tsting building or buildings, 50%of such parkingspacesshall be
part of the high cost of addingrecent parking space~at UCLA. The replacedand shall be in addition to the numberof spaces otherwise
The High Cost of Free Parking 19
required for the project or for any existing buildingor buildingson any 37. Shoup(1992, 1994, 1995) describer newtechnologies to collect curb
other lot or lots. RepLw.ement parkingshall be madeavailablefor public parking revenue*without using conventional parking meters.
use" (Los AngelesCity Ordinance164.305,effective January30, 1989). 38. Becausethe average surface parking space on campusoccupies 329
25. Theseare the minimum parking requirementsfor furniture stores and squarefeet of land, the impliedvalueof land for surface parkingis thus
bicycle repair shops in HillsboroughCount, Florida (PAS1991). the land value per surface spacelost dividedby 329 (see endnote9).
Whya bicycle repak shop needs three 6rues moreparking spaces than 39. Alarge R-5residential site near campuswas sold for $504per square
a furniture store is anyone’sguess. foot of land in 1989. Several small commerdalsites in Westwood
26. Somecommuterswill be absent from work, so more commuterscan be Village adjacent to the campushavealso beensold at prices above
offered parking than there are spaces. Onthe other hand, a parking $241per square foot of land in recent years. Therefore,a price of $241
systemoperates mostefl~dently with a vacancyrate of between5 and per square foot of land seemsconservative. This informationwas
15 percent. Theabsenteerate foundin parkingstudies is typically supplied by the LOsAngelesCountyAssessor.
between5 and 15 percent, so these two favors are assumedto cancel 40. The parking systemwas also subsidizedbecause it was not charged
each other. anythingfor its use of land. Themarketsolution, typically advocated
27. If the operatingcost is 9.2 cents per mile, drMnga car 25 miles an by econom~ts,is to charge a price for parkingthat coversthe marg/na]
hour consume* rite[ ~t a rate of $2.30 an hour. Whereparking costs cost of adding parking spaces, and then build newspaces only when
morethan $2.30an hour, driving a car is cheaperthan parking it. there is excessdemand at the price that coversthis marginalcost. If
28. Wecan also comparethe subsidy for parking at workvdth the gasoline price equals marginalcost, and marginalcost is aboveaveragecost, the
mxfor driving to work.in 1994,the averagenewcar’s fuel efficiency difference betweenprice and averagecost will yield a rental return to
was 28.1 miles per gallon (AAMA 1994, 83). The average round-trip lando
commutedistance by car is 20.8 miles, so the averagecommute in a
newcar consumes0.74 gallons of gasoline a day. fftbe parking subsidy
is $5.64 a day, and the commute consumes0.74 gallons of gasoline, [] Rr.w_a~cr~
the parking subsidy at workeq~ $7.61 per gallon of gasoline Altshuler, A., and J. G6mez-lbtfie~1993. Regulat/onf~Revenue.Washing-
consumedby the commuteto work($5.64 divided by 0.74 gallons). ton, D.C.: Brook/ngsInstitution.
In this case, free parkingat workreducexthe cost of driv/ng to workby AmericanAutomobileManufacturers Assodation. 1994. AAMA Motor
as muchas a gasoline tax of $7.61per gallon wouldincrease it. Vehicle Fac~andFigum ’94. Detroit, Mich.:Public Aft;tim Division,
29. The 1990 NPTSfound that 91 percent of commuterstravel to work AAMA.
by automobile(Hu and Young1992, 22), and that 95 percent of all Association for Commuter Transpormtiun. 1996. CommuterChoice
automobile commuterspark free at work(Shoup 1995, 14). The I990 Initiative. Washington,D.C.: Associationfor ComputerTrampostadon.
Censusfound that 92 percent of automobiles driven m workhave only Bantu, L 1903. The Ww.ardofOz Indianapolis, Ind.: BobbsMerrill
one occupant(Plsarski 1996,49). In contrast, a I996 survey found Company.
that fewerthan 1 percent of employersoffer commuters any transit Bertha, B. 1964. AppendixA. In The Lou~RiseSpeculative Aparrmem by W.
benefits (Association for Commuter Transportation, 199&26). Shnup Smith. ResearchReport25. Berkdcy,Calif.: Centerfor Real Estate and
and Breinhott (1997) found that employersmthe United States UrbanEconomics, U~fiverfity of California.
provide 85 million free parking spaces for commuters. Boorsun, D. 1962. Thelrnage. NewYork: Atheneum.
30. Whennon-respondentsare eliminated from the 1951survey, 81 Cameron,M. 1994oE~’neyand Fairness on the Road~OakLand,C_.~f.:
percent of title* had or wereadoptingparking requirements;there EnvironmemalDefense Fund.
were no non-respondenrs in the 1946 survey (Mogtenand Smith Cer~ro,/L1988. America"s SuburbanC.enten: A Studyof the LandUse-
I952, 29). Tramportation Link. Report No. DOT-T-88-14.Washington, D.C.:
31. ~BusineatDistricts," Lns AngelesRegionalPlanning Commis,ion,Lus UoS.Departmentof Transportation.
Angeles, Califorma, 1944; quoted in Mogeenand Smith (1952, 33). Chap/n, F. 1957. UrbanLandUse Planning. NewYork: Harper & Brothers.
This ~irredudble minimum"parking req/nremeat is approxinmtdy Chap/n,F. 1965. UrbanLandUse Planning.SecondEdition. Urbana, Ill.:
three parkingspace*per 1,000squarefeet of retail and office space. Universityof Illinois Press.
32. For office buildings in the CBD,Los Angelesrequires a minimum of Chaph, F., and E. ~. 1979. UrbanLand Use Planning. 3rd edidun.
one parking space per 1,000 square feet. with no maximum. San Urbana,Ill.: Univemity of Illlnois Press.
Francisco allows parking spaces equal to a manmum of 7 percent of Consume~uestMarketing Research & Analysis. 1995. CommunityNeeda
building area (0.2 spaces per 1,000 squa~feet ifa parkingspace Aummem Survey. Los Angeles, Calif.: RebuildLos Angeles.
occupies 350 square feet), with no minimum. For auditoriums in the Cook,J., and R. Diaz. L Kliemaa,T. Rood,and J. Wu.1997. Parking
CBD,Los Angdesrequires a minimumoften parking spaces per 1000 policies in BayAreajur/sdictions: Asurveyof parkingrequirements,their
square feet, with no maximum. SanFrancisco allows parking spaces methodologicalorigim, and an exploration of their land use impacts.
equal to a maximum of 7 percent of buildin 8 area~ with no minimum. Paperin City Planning217. Berkeley,Calif.: Departmentof City and
33. In a surveyof planningofficials of 144SouthernCalifornia rides, RegionalPhnning,Universityof California.
Richard WiUson(1996) asked "Whydoes your dty have minimum Dickey, J. 1983. Mampo~tan Transportauwa Planning. 2rid edition. New
parking requirements?" The mostfrequent respomewas the drcular York: McGraw-Hill.
explanation ~mhave an adequate numberof spacer." EnergyInformationAdministration. 1987. Res/dem/M TramportationEnergy
34. In the 1939fdmversion, TotopulL~aside a curtain to reveal the Consumption Survey: Coravanption Patterns of HouseholdVehicl~1985.
Wizard, whoroars ~Doyou presumem criticize the Great Oz?"and Washington,D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.
looks suspiciouslylike a plannersetting parkingrequirements.Even Francis, W. 1993. Dewntoum Los AngelesO~ceBuilddngParkingRate Survey.
the phrase ~setting parking requirements"misleadinglyimplies the Burbank.Calif.: W’~iam Francis &Associates.
postetaionof special skills, expertise,or technicalability, suchas for George,H. 1879.Progrexsand Poverty:An Inquiry into the Cameof lndusma/
calibrating a finely tunedinstrument. Giventhe haphazardnature of Depremom, and of lnerease of Wantwith the Increase of Wea~b--the
the process, perhapsplanners merely~establish" or "impose"parking Remedy.San Franc/sen, Calif.: W.M.H/nton and Co.
requirements. GruenAssodates. 1986. EmpioyraentandParkingin SuburbanBusiness Parks:
35. See StatisticalBrief, SB/93-5.Washington,D.C.: U.S. Bureauof the A Pilot Study. Washington,D.C.: UrbanLandInstitute.
Census, May1993. Hanson,S., ed. 1995. The Geographyof UrbanTransportation. NewYork:
36. Columbus,Ohio, introduced the country’s first minimum parking GuilfordPress.
requirement in 1923, and Ok1~oma City introduced the first parking Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Sc/ence 162:1243-1248.
meters in 1935 (Witheford and Kanaan1972). The Reverend C.H. Hu, P., andJ. Young.1992. Summaryof Travel Trends, 1990Naionuade
Northwasthe first motorist cited for overstayinga parkingmeter’s Personal TramporuuionSurvey. Report No. FHWA-PL-92o027.
time limit; his novelexcusethat he ~hadgone to get change" Washington,D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Transportation.
persuadedthe judge to dismissthe c/~don(A4~rightParkingNews Institute of TramportationEngineers.1987. ParkingGeneration.2nd
1985,5). edition. Washington,D.C.: Institute of TransportationEngineers.
20 Shoup
Kaiser, E., D. Godschalk,and F. Chapin.1995. UrbanLandUsePlanning. Schelling, T. 1978. Micromativesand Macrabehamor. NewYork: W.W.
4th edition. Urbana,Ill.: Universityof Illinols Press. Norton.
KMPG Peat Marwick.1990. Dimemiom of Parking. Prepared for the Urban Shoup, D. 1992. Cashing Out Employer-PaidParking.Report No. FTA-CA-
MassTransportationAdministration,Office of Budgetand Policy, U.S. 11-0035-92-1. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Tramportadon.
Departmentof Ttamportation. Shoup,D. 1994.Cashingin on curb parking. Acceu4 (Spring): 20-26.
Lmie, A. 1986. The NowhereCir. London, UK:Abacm. Sboup, D. 1995. Art Opportunity to ReduceMinimum Parking Require-
Meyer,M., and E. Miller. 1984. UrbanTramporm~wn Plvmning. NewYork: ment*. Journalof the A meman PlanningAuociatmn
61 ( 1 ): 14-28.
McGraw-Hill. Shoup, D. 1997. The HighCast of Minimum ParkingRequirements:Evidence
Mogren,E., and W. Smith. 1952. ZoningandTra~. Saugatuck, Conn.: from in-Lieu ParkingFees. WorkingPaper. Los Angdes,C_C_~.:UCLA
EnoFoundation. lusdtute of TtamportadonStudies.
Papar.~tas, C., and P. Prevedouros.1993. Transponatmn £ngineeringand Shoup, D.,andM. Breinholt. 1997. Employer-paidparking A nazionwidc
Planmng.2ndedition. Engtewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. survey of employers’ parkingsubsidypolicies. InTheFulISacial Costs
Pisarski. A. 1995.Thedemography of the U.S. vehicle fleet: Observations andBenefits efTranapomation,eds. D. Greene, D. Jones, and M.
from the NPTS.I990 NationwidePersonalTransportatmn Survey, Special DelucchLHddeiberg, Germany:Springer-Verlag.
Reportson Trip andVehicleAttributes. Waxhington0 D.C.: U.S. University of California at Los Angde*Parking Services. UCLA Parking
Devasmlentof Trausportation. Servicea Master Plan. June 1994.
Pisarsh, A. 1996. Commuting m AmebaII: The SecondNational Reporton U.S. Bureauof the Census. 1993. Sta~ticalBrief SB/93-5. Wmhington,
Commuting Patterns and TrendJ. Lanadowne,Va.: Eno Tramportanon D.C.: U.S. Bureauof the Census.
Foundation. UrbanLandlr~tirate. ~982. ParkingRequiremen~)~r ShoppingCerium.
Plarmmg AdvisoryService. 1964. Off--SweetParkingRequiremenu.PLanning Washington, D.C.: UrbanLand lmtitute.
AdvisoryService Report Number 182. Chicago, IlL: AmericanPLanning Weant,R., and H. Levimon.1990. Parking. Weatport0Corm.: Eno
A~ociation. Formdar/on.
PlanningAdvisorySel~rice. 1971. AnApproachto DeterminingParking Wllda~ky,A. 1979. Spe~kingTruth to Power.Boston, Mm*.:Little, Brown
Demana~ Planning AdvisoryService ReportNumber 270. Chicago, ILl.: and Company.
Amex~can PLanningAssociadon. Will*on, R. 1995. Suburbanparking requirement,: Atacit policy for
PlanningAdvisoryService. 199I. Off--Street ParkingRequirements: A National automobileuse and sprawl. Journal of d~e Araemcan PlanningAsmciation
Remewof Standarda.Planning Advisor,/ServiceReportNumber43Z 61(1):29-42.
Chicago,ILl.: American PlanningAssociation. W’fll*on,R. 1996.Local Jurisdiction ParkingRequirement:A Survey.of
Polama,S. and K. Price. 1991.ParkingReguhdom in SoutheasternCities: A Po~cies and Attitudes. WorkingPaper. Pomona,Ca~£: Departmentof
SummaryReport./TEJourna/June: 31-34. Urbanand Regional Phnning, C~fornia State Polytechnic Univers/ty.