Comments on: Shoup Weighs in on Oakland Parking Controversy

By: SFResident

SFResident — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:32:54 +0000

@huh – Very well said.

Shoup’s version of this (where parking is regulated simply to keep away “demand” and any income is put into beautification improvements) seems designed to build income-segregated cities. I’m all for high parking fees, but those fees should go towards improving movement around a city, not towards creating exclusionary enclaves.

By: huh

huh — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:36:47 +0000

“market-based pricing is only fair when the funds raised are directly used to support public transit, bicycle improvements, and other more inexpensive transit options for those who cannot afford the market rate.”

@SFResident: that’s exactly the point of SFPark and congestion charging schemes like London. The money should be funnelled into public transit, not frittered away into local cosemitc improvements, cleaning sidewalks, paying security “ambassadors” and other superficial things as suggested by Shoup, which are little more than ways to buy-off the locals with goodies that they can “see” rather than actually using the money to make it easier to get around without a car.

If you care about equity, there will never be justice and equity unless the fees levied for use of roads and parking are at least as much as a round-trip transit fare for every trip. No parking space in SF should ever cost less than $2, even if you stay for only 15 minutes, as the cheapest public transit ride for the same trip is $2.

There is nothing unreasonable about paying $6 to park for 3 hours to go to a movie. If there are 2 people in the car that’s a measly $3/person! That’s cheaper than taking the f—ing bus! It’s an outrage how cheap that is!

By: SFResident

SFResident — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:02:34 +0000

I’m always a bit uncomfortable when we sell off public goods at ‘market rates.’ Government isn’t in business to make money, it exists to promote the general welfare. A key part of promoting the ‘general welfare’ is attempting to give citizens equal access to government services.

When the government distributes a scarce good (like parking) to the highest bidder they are treating us more like shareholders and consumers than like citizen. There may be good reasons for doing this, but it shouldn’t be done lightly and the benefits to the few should be off-balanced by benefits to the many. With parking, market-based pricing is only fair when the funds raised are directly used to support public transit, bicycle improvements, and other more inexpensive transit options for those who cannot afford the market rate.

By: bikerider

bikerider — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:42:24 +0000

@Joe: There is a a subtle but important distinction. Shoup’s argument relies on maintaining high turnover rates. In the case of movie theater, cars will be parked for hours at a time.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:59:55 +0000

@bikerider: what’s the problem with having folks pay market rates for movie theater parking?

By: bikerider

bikerider — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:43:48 +0000

Shoup’s theories work very well for short-term trips to a store. The problem is how to devise equitable allocation scheme for long-term parking (say at a movie theater)?

In the case of Grand Lake, the real fundamental problem is that despite having a very dense neighborhood, there is a lack of quality transit service. If Oakland is going to be building monorails anywhere, it should be between Grand Lake and 19th St. Bart, not the airport.

By: soylatte

soylatte — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:50:05 +0000

He has a point somewhere but I am vary both of “market-driven” approaches to managing public space, and of sophisticated techno-solutions for it (prices fluctuate during the day etc).