Even if policies made sense when first conceived, sludge accumulates over time. New rules get tacked onto existing frameworks, creating a jumble.
So Lloyd Burr’s column in last week’s Post was refreshing.
Burr explained the set of policies that Auckland Transport is pursuing to deal with that city’s parking issues.
It’s always possible that they have botched things in implementation since then: the set of policies Burr described were set, at a high level, a year ago. But the set of policies, at least at that high level, had a coherence to them that is far too rare.
To see that coherence, let’s do some Parking Economics 101.
When cities have a lot of spare space, real estate taken up by on-street parking is neither particularly valuable nor scarce. There would be little point in metering. If there are always free spaces around, there is no need to charge.
As cities get busier, parking becomes scarce. When more people want a place to park than there are spaces available, something will always allocate those scarce spaces.
If parking is scarce but isn’t priced, people still pay for parking: driving around the block repeatedly until they find a spot – and then staying for an extended period rather than risking losing the spot. If parking is metered, then the higher cost of parking for a longer period, or time limits on spaces, encourages people to make the best use of their time before leaving the space for others to use.
Economists who study parking recommend setting prices so there are always one or two free spaces on any given block. Everyone willing to pay the going price for a parking spot can find one, without having to spend a lot of time hunting. The price of on-street parking then should vary by place and by time, with higher charges in places and at times when there is a lot of demand for parking, and lower charges otherwise.
Burr explains that Auckland Transport will be charging or time-limiting parking in different areas, and that charges in its parking buildings may increase.
It makes perfect sense in principle – but Auckland residents would be better placed than I am to know whether the charges and limits Auckland Transport is considering are about right for keeping a few free spaces on each block.
Let’s go back to Parking 101.
Cities also have to decide how many spaces council should provide, on-street or off.
As cities grow and more valuable uses for urban spaces emerge, parking should have to compete with those other uses. If a restaurant wants an outdoor patio and can outbid parking charges for use of the spaces in front of the restaurant, the space should shift to the more valuable use. On busier streets, shifting spaces from parking to commuting can also make sense – though congestion charges could be tried as well.
Burr reports that Auckland will be shifting some parking spaces over for other uses – primarily ones where there is no current time restriction or metering. And Auckland Transport will also be redeveloping or selling off some of its off-street car parks. The same principle applies: if a developer can pay Auckland Transport more for an off-street car park than that car park ever returns in parking charges, then that change adds value.
When on-street parking next to the house is almost free, it can make sense to turn the garage into a storage room and leave the car on the street – or to not build a garage at all. Resident passes manage parking in residential areas where more people would like to park than there are available spaces. If a resident’s pass reflects the actual cost of the on-street space, particularly when those spaces are scarce, then tidying the garage to make room for the car might make more sense.
Auckland Transport proposes higher charges for those permits.
But levies for private off-street car parks for downtown businesses, included in the proposals, is a bit of a clanger. Where congestion charges are coming soon, it’s hard to make a case for levies on spaces that council does not own.
For too long, New Zealand managed parking scarcity by forcing developers to provide large amounts of parking, regardless of whether tenants wanted the spaces at the cost of providing them. It meant ample parking, but it inflated the cost of building new homes and businesses.
It also meant that councils were often a bit lazy about managing parking.
The abolition of minimum parking requirements in 2020 means councils will have to get better at managing on-street parking. It’s a far better solution that forcing excessive amounts of valuable urban land to be used for car storage.
And at least in terms of high-level expressed principles, Auckland Transport seems mainly to be on the right track.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
To see that coherence, let’s do some Parking Economics 101.
When cities have a lot of spare space, real estate taken up by on-street parking is neither particularly valuable nor scarce. There would be little point in metering. If there are always free spaces around, there is no need to charge.
As cities get busier, parking becomes scarce. When more people want a place to park than there are spaces available, something will always allocate those scarce spaces.
If parking is scarce but isn’t priced, people still pay for parking: driving around the block repeatedly until they find a spot – and then staying for an extended period rather than risking losing the spot. If parking is metered, then the higher cost of parking for a longer period, or time limits on spaces, encourages people to make the best use of their time before leaving the space for others to use.
Economists who study parking recommend setting prices so there are always one or two free spaces on any given block. Everyone willing to pay the going price for a parking spot can find one, without having to spend a lot of time hunting. The price of on-street parking then should vary by place and by time, with higher charges in places and at times when there is a lot of demand for parking, and lower charges otherwise.
Burr explains that Auckland Transport will be charging or time-limiting parking in different areas, and that charges in its parking buildings may increase.
It makes perfect sense in principle – but Auckland residents would be better placed than I am to know whether the charges and limits Auckland Transport is considering are about right for keeping a few free spaces on each block.
Let’s go back to Parking 101.
Cities also have to decide how many spaces council should provide, on-street or off.
As cities grow and more valuable uses for urban spaces emerge, parking should have to compete with those other uses. If a restaurant wants an outdoor patio and can outbid parking charges for use of the spaces in front of the restaurant, the space should shift to the more valuable use. On busier streets, shifting spaces from parking to commuting can also make sense – though congestion charges could be tried as well.
Burr reports that Auckland will be shifting some parking spaces over for other uses – primarily ones where there is no current time restriction or metering. And Auckland Transport will also be redeveloping or selling off some of its off-street car parks. The same principle applies: if a developer can pay Auckland Transport more for an off-street car park than that car park ever returns in parking charges, then that change adds value.
When on-street parking next to the house is almost free, it can make sense to turn the garage into a storage room and leave the car on the street – or to not build a garage at all. Resident passes manage parking in residential areas where more people would like to park than there are available spaces. If a resident’s pass reflects the actual cost of the on-street space, particularly when those spaces are scarce, then tidying the garage to make room for the car might make more sense.
Auckland Transport proposes higher charges for those permits.
But levies for private off-street car parks for downtown businesses, included in the proposals, is a bit of a clanger. Where congestion charges are coming soon, it’s hard to make a case for levies on spaces that council does not own.
For too long, New Zealand managed parking scarcity by forcing developers to provide large amounts of parking, regardless of whether tenants wanted the spaces at the cost of providing them. It meant ample parking, but it inflated the cost of building new homes and businesses.
It also meant that councils were often a bit lazy about managing parking.
The abolition of minimum parking requirements in 2020 means councils will have to get better at managing on-street parking. It’s a far better solution that forcing excessive amounts of valuable urban land to be used for car storage.
And at least in terms of high-level expressed principles, Auckland Transport seems mainly to be on the right track.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.