What the Price of Parking Shows Us About Cities

Check out the interactive chart at this link.
To see where your city falls, check out the interactive chart at this link.

Cross-posted from City Observatory

Earlier, we rolled out our parking price index, showing the variation in parking prices among large US cities. Gleaning data from ParkMe, a web-based directory of parking lots and rates, we showed how much it cost to park on a monthly basis in different cities. There’s a surprising degree of variation: While the typical rate is somewhere in the range of $200 a month, in some cities (New York) parking costs more than $700 a month, while in others (Oklahoma City) it’s less than $30 a month.

As Donald Shoup has exhaustively explained in its tome, The High Cost of Free Parking, parking has a tremendous impact on urban form. And while Shoup’s work focuses chiefly on the side effects of parking requirements and under-priced street parking, we’re going to use our index of parking prices to explore how market-provided parking relates to the urban transportation system.

In the United States, the majority of commuters travel alone by private automobile to their place of work. But in some places — in large cities and in dense downtowns — more people travel by transit, bicycle or walk to work. It’s worth asking why more people don’t drive. After all, the cost of car ownership is essentially the same everywhere in the U.S. The short answer is that in cities, parking isn’t free. And when parking isn’t free, more people take transit or other modes of transportation.

To see just how strong an explanation that parking prices provide for transit use, we’ve plotted the number of transit trips per capita in each of the largest metropolitan areas against the typical price of a month of parking in the city center. Each data point represents a single metropolitan area. There’s a very strong positive correlation between transit rides per capita and parking rates. Cities with higher parking rates have more transit rides per capita than cities with lower parking rates. The statistical correlation between the two measures is extremely strong: The coefficient of determination (R2) is .83, suggesting that parking rates statistically explain 83 percent of the variation in transit use among cities.

It’s worth noting that this relationship is based on extremely coarse data about both parking prices and transit use. We’ve measured transit use for entire metropolitan areas (including dense centers and distant suburbs) and looked only at parking rates in and around the city hall of the largest city in each metropolitan area. A more nuanced examination of parking rates and transit ridership (one, for example, that looked at parking rates and transit use in particular neighborhoods), might show an even stronger relationship.

What this points out is that private car commuting is extremely sensitive to the price commuters must pay. For most commutes, commuters don’t have to pay for parking — their employers provide (often by regulatory fiat) “free” parking. When confronted with paying the cost of parking (and the average is about $6 per day at a monthly rate), many more people choose to travel by other modes of transportation.

This suggests that there is much more opportunity to influence travel behavior by pricing than we commonly appreciate. In effect, what pricing of parking in some metropolitan areas is doing is correcting for the market failure of not pricing roads.

As we’ve frequently noted at City Observatory, we don’t directly charge for road use in the United States. Motorists pay some road use fees, based almost entirely on fuel consumption (which, incidentally, don’t come close to covering the cost of the roads system). Importantly, the way we charge for roads through fuel taxes bears no relationship to the roads motorists actually use, or the time that they use them. And, as a practical matter, the cost and capacity of the road system are largely shaped by peak hour travel in urban places.

It’s worth asking why private sector firms build and operate parking lots in some locations (and not others) and why car owners pay much higher rates to park in some cities than others. An essential fact of private car travel is that it requires that owners have a place to store their vehicle at their origin and at their destination. In urban centers, there’s more demand for travel — and parking spaces — than can be met, with the effect that the price of parking is higher than elsewhere. In effect, private parking lots capture the the value associated with peak period car travel to dense urban destinations. Because we don’t charge for the use of the roads during the peak hour, private lots are able to capture some of the economic rents associated with access to the urban center at the peak hour.

The high value that people attach to access to urban centers is attracting a disruptive new entrant to the urban transportation market: ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft.  Our data show that the growth of these services — as proxied by the Brookings Institution’s recent estimates of the growth of non-employer transportation service providers — is also closely correlated with high parking rates. In the following chart, we show the correlation between city parking rates (on the vertical axis) and the number of transportation service non-employers per 100,000 metropolitan population. As with transit trips, there’s a strong, positive correlation.  The coefficient of determination is .68, implying that parking prices statistically explain about 68 percent of the variation in the penetration of ride hailing services among metropolitan areas.

Check out the interactive chart at this link.
To see where your city falls, check out this interactive chart.

This makes perfect sense: The richest market for ride-hailing is going to be in those places where it is most inconvenient and expensive to park a car. Ride-hailing is highly attractive if one’s alternative is to drive your own car, and have to hunt for, drive to, and then pay for parking. Conversely, if parking is free and abundant at your destination, there’s much less incentive to use Uber or Lyft, particularly if one already owns a private vehicle.

The strong relationship between parking prices and transit use, and between parking prices and the uptake of ridesharing has important implications for the future of urban transportation.

First and foremost, it serves as reminder that prices offer powerful incentives that shape travel behavior. Transit is most heavily patronized in those cities where motorists have to pay relatively high prices for parking, and least used where parking is free.

Second, it suggests that the most lucrative markets for ride-hailing services will be in relatively dense places (with lots of potential customers) and where parking is more expensive or scarce (making ride-hailing more attractive). We would expect low density suburbs and rural areas to be the least attractive markets ride-hailing services.

Third, the price of parking currently operates as a kind of surrogate or shadow-price for roads in dense central cities. Fewer people drive, and more people take transit another modes, because of the high cost of parking. But as ride-sharing services expand, the constraint on demand for car travel in central cities imposed by high parking prices will disappear, with the effect that there will likely be much more demand for on-street travel. While city streets are un-priced, peak hour travel by Uber and Lyft is not. In fact, these operators both utilize surge pricing. As a result, it seems likely that the growth of ride-hailing, particularly with services that use surge pricing, transportation providers will capture some of the economic rents associated with peak period congestion. Profits for this sector are built in part on capturing the scarcity value of urban streets, which are un-priced or under-priced for both vehicle movement and storage.

The price of parking is an under-appreciated aspect of the urban transportation system. As we wrestle with the disruptions from ride-hailing services, and perhaps soon, autonomous vehicles, what happens to parking prices could have major impacts on our cities.

  • ChicagoCyclist

    Yes, but what if you have high parking prices but lousy, or non-functional, or non-existent, transit options? Only a handful of large cities in the world offer really excellent (and affordable) COMPLETE METRO-WIDE MASS RAPID TRANSIT NETWORKS (all words are really important here) — London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow, New York, Seoul, Barcelona, etc. come to mind. Without a really good / truly viable mass rapid transit option, then — as is the case with congestion pricing — a very real equity concern arises with high pricing of parking. You have to make it possible for folks to get everywhere they want / need to go by mass rapid transit in order to have the basis or foundation to effectively, fairly, and justly get them out of their cars by high pricing, right?

  • Jimbo

    this is a poorly run study from a statistical perspective. the lack of transit is likely a bigger contributor than the amount of parking. correlation does not equal causation, even though that fits your purpose

  • xplosneer

    It’s such a chicken/egg problem that goes back to leaders not having the spine to put in great transit because it costs money.

    Also, are you the same guy that does the videos on r/bikecammers? Hi!

  • Richard

    It’s not a handful. There are hundreds of cities that have excellent mass transit systems. Delhi, Tapei, Shenzhen, Osaka, Stockholm, Beijing, Copenhagen, Shanghai, St Petersburg, Hong Kong, Nagoya, Mexico City, Guangzhou, Sao Paulo, Tehran, Nanjing, Santiago,Istanbul, Singapore, Montreal, Madrid, Tianjin all have top notch rapid transit systems off the top of my head. It seems like only a handful from a US-centric view of the world where only New York makes the list.

    If there is enough density to make parking expensive, people will start taking transit. If enough people take transit, the transit will be invested in to be better than a bus. From a US perspective, we require parking to be built in almost all new structures, which makes rents higher but then provides free/cheap parking. Thus we will never have good transit.

  • Kenny Easwaran

    I would also like a study like this to see how robust the results are to dropping New York. The relationships look like they will still be there, but would likely be much weaker.

  • Guy Ross

    And every single village, town and city in Germany over the population fo 20K

    It’s not just parking, it is also moving toward requiring drivers to pay for their choices by full direct funding.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Comparing the Price of Parking Across U.S. Cities

|
This article was cross-posted from City Observatory.  How much does it cost to park a car in different cities around the nation? Today, we’re presenting some new data on a surprisingly under-measured aspect of cities and the cost of living: how much it costs to park a car in different cities. There are regular comparisons of […]

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 […]

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 […]

Curb Appeal

|
Alan Durning is the executive director of Sightline. This post is #15 in the Sightline series, Parking? Lots! Imagine if you could put a meter in front of your house and charge every driver who parks in “your” space. It’d be like having a cash register at the curb. Free money! How much would you collect? Hundreds […]

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 […]