Drove by the Franconia Springfield metro stop on Saturday and the parking lot looked around 20% full. If you charged, I think a majority will just find parking around the metro station; in this case the Mall a block away. I suspect many riders will just try and find parking around the station, as parking restrictions are usually are not in effect on the weekends. So if you start charging, you also have to implement full week parking restrictions.

by RJ on Feb 23, 2009 1:47 pm  

What is "performance parking" anyways? Is it just adjusting rates to match periods of high and low demand?

by MPC on Feb 23, 2009 1:52 pm  

Doesn't metro already do this to some degree by charging more for "reserved" parking at certain stations (i.e., they save 1000 spaces for 1000 "reserved" parkers)?

Keep in mind that part of the point of Metro is to get people out of their cars, which benefits both metro takers and the people that for whatever reason need to stay in their cars. So a subsidy benefits not only parkers, but others as well. Reduce that subsidy and you end up with more traffic.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 2:17 pm  

ah: Huh? If the garage is filling up with people paying $4 a day, and instead we fill it with people paying $5 a day, how are we going to end up with more traffic?

The key is to price the garage so that we still fill it up, but fill it with the people who most want to use it instead of just whoever shows up first.

by David Alpert on Feb 23, 2009 2:19 pm  

The San Francisco Bay Area's BART system has a program where there is reserved parking closest to the station that opens after 10 AM. This encourages people to take BART at non-peak times instead of automatically driving in. These spots are also available at a higher cost for people who are willing to pay the premium and arrive before 10 AM.

by Kate on Feb 23, 2009 2:54 pm  

MPC: That's right. "Performance Parking" is setting the price such that the spaces are "almost full". For on-street parking, that usually means about 80-90% full because you want people to find a space right away so they don't continue to disrupt traffic while they search.

For a parking garage or a lot, you can push the percentage up a little bit more (around 95% full) because the people searching for parking in a lot are not out on the road disrupting the flow of traffic.

Also, if we have lots that are not filling up, it sounds like we should drop the price in order to get people off of the roads and into Metro's parking lots. We'll get back some of the price drop in increased fare revenues because more people are riding, and in the short-term marginal peak riders are cost-free.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 3:00 pm  

Raising the price on something you want to encourage more people to use. Brilliant!

by Steve on Feb 23, 2009 3:01 pm  

Steve, the supply is capped. In the short run, we can't build more parking spaces at Metro stations. Even if we dropped the price, no more people could use the lots because they're all full.

By increasing the price just a little, we keep the lots full or almost full and get more system revenue that we can use to keep fares low or keep service from being cut.

This debate is similar to the one we had about free parking for the inauguration.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 3:06 pm  

Kate: Metro has that too, it's about $50 extra per month (don't quote me!) and the spaces open up after a certain time.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 3:07 pm  

Steve, you're missing the point. There is a limited supply of parking. If people are being turned away then that means demand is greater than supply. To get the two in line, you could increase supply - which is expensive - or decrease demand, by raising prices.

To paraphrase David above "If the garage is filling up with people paying $4 a day, and instead we fill it with people paying $5 a day" how are we discouraging people to drive to Metro?

The alternative is decreasing service on something you want to encourage more people to use. Brilliant!

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 3:09 pm  

Performance parking will make people drive their car to work. The point of metro parking is to lure people *into* metro, not to price them out.

Many people park at Metro to save money. Performance parking will increase the price, and will make people drive to work, meaning less riders on metro. Furthermore, you are punishing people who live outside the reach of metro for using transit.

Last, when these parking lots were build, it was promised they would stay free.

If you're so strongly opined about the state keeping its promise to Arlington residents with regards to I-66, you should also be strong that metro keeps its promise to keep parking free for commuters.

by Jasper on Feb 23, 2009 3:10 pm  

David--that's revenue maximization. Is "performance parking" just a new term for an old concept? I was taking it to mean that you'd actually have some empty spaces, created by pricing that encouraged people not to use the parking.

Just raising the prices so it fills up later won't change traffic (assuming the mix of parkers is the same*), but it won't change incentives either, it just means that richer people will park instead of poorer people, and poorer people will drive instead of richer people. (roughly speaking). In other words, "performance parking" is just a way for metro to increase revenue, which isn't a bad thing, but also doesn't do much for creating incentives.

*I suspect one could create a model in which the early parkers are the most intense users of parking. Later parkers may tend to include people taking discretionary trips. If they are enabled to park later you may end up encouraging them to drive/metro during rush hour rather than postpone their trips until later in the day. But I'd have to noodle that around a lot. Suffice to say, I'm not sure the effects are as unambiguous as you state.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 3:10 pm  

Why not reward those who show up first and leave first? These people are driving off peak when traffic is lighter and before the major crush at peak rush. Also, they are opening up valuable spots for those trekking their way into the city for Cap/Nats/Wiz games when they leave. Also, how would you establish premium time over discount/standard time? Seems that premium time should be at peak rush 8-9, but you want to charge more for those that arrive before then. Metro has major capacity issues; we should be encouraging more to travel off hours. One way for this to work is offer the premium parking during the peak hours and discount during off peak. Or better yet charge them based on what time they leave, I am sure bar and restaurant owners will love that approach.

To note 8-9 peak is a guess on my part.

by RJ on Feb 23, 2009 3:16 pm  

And where will those people who make up the decrease in demand go?

Seems to me if there's a rat race to fill the garage early it keeps cars off the road during periods of high traffic volume. If Metro commuters need to be at the garage by 7am to get a parking space it means less cars on the road at 8am when the roads are already packed.

And increase in supply is the only long-term solution.

by Steve on Feb 23, 2009 3:26 pm  

Jasper, if the lots are full at the current price, and they would also be full at an increased price, how is that making people drive to work?

You have to be careful with this, to be sure. There's a value to knowing in advance what the parking rates are.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2009 3:27 pm  

RJ -- interesting point, because I think that's roughly what happens now with the reserved parking. Early on you can get in at regular prices. Want to show up between 8 and 10? Better have reserved (costlier) parking. After 10, spaces open up, so back to lower cost.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 3:37 pm  

@ah: It's revenue maximization subject to the constraint that the lot remains full or nearly full (within 5% of "full"). True revenue maximization might be when the parking lot is 50% or even less full. That would not be desirable because fewer people would be parking and using rail.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 3:39 pm  

I think you're assuming that the only change in behavior will be that a different group of people will park or that those who park will just pay more. But I think it's reasonable to think that higher parking fees will encourage people to share the cost - carpooling to the parking garage. At $2 a day, maybe it isn't worth it, but at $4 a day it is. So, that is a real change in congestion. Those who are "price out" of parking won't all end up driving either, since parking in the city often isn't free. Some will take the bus, or bike to metro. Or carpool all the way.

I'm also not sure this will shift more people into the prime travel hours. I think it would do the opposite. Sam Earlybird was getting up early to snag a spot. But now he's priced out. He decides to drive. But he might still leave early, since he was willing and able to do it to get a spot, to avoid traffic. Meanwhile Mary Seesherkidsofftoschool was unwilling\unable to leave early but is willing to pay more. She's now going to the Metro instead of driving in.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 3:41 pm  

@ Alex B: You're right. Let me rephrase. If you up the price while keeping them full, you're just screwing people out of their money. And you will have a little dance between people for whom it becomes more economical to drive to work all the way, with some people who can't park now.

The real clue here is that the parkings are a success, and that we need more parking at metro stations, so we can have more commuters park and ride metro.

What many of the 'price them out' fans here are forgetting that the parkers are the "good" folks, who live outside of the reach of metro, drive *a little distance* to metro and then use transit further in. While metro hasn't expanded to the beautiful dream maps all over this site, we should be happy these people park at all at meto in stead of driving all the way in.

I think a lot of downtowners don't realize how crappy bus service can be in the 'burbs.

Does anybody know how many of those drivers have a decent bus alternative? My guess is not many.

by Jasper on Feb 23, 2009 3:59 pm  

OR, we need more TOD that allows more people to walk and bike to Metro and that makes every metro station a destination unto itself.

The people right now who aren't parking because they can't get there early enough, they aren't "bad" people. They're "good" folks too. It's just that they value time more than money.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 4:14 pm  

I agree with Jasper. Isn't the point to encourage Metro use? By increasing parking costs, Metro would deter potential customers who are trying to use public transit.

If the lots are full, then more parking capacity sounds like the answer, not expensive lots that are 95 percent full.

by Rocky6 on Feb 23, 2009 4:22 pm  

Even if that is the right answer, it isn't really an option. Right now Metro has a budget deficit. Garages are revenue negative (they never make enough money to pay for themselves), so building more parking makes the deficit larger. This is a way to bring supply and demand into line AND help close the deficit. And it will probably increase ridership, if only very little.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 4:27 pm  

Only on GGW does decreasing demand increase ridership... astonishing.

by Steve on Feb 23, 2009 4:37 pm  

Yes, more capacity might be a better long-term solution. But the point here is that we are dealing with a SHORT TERM problem.

WMATA has a massive budget deficit in 2009. It cannot be solved by spending millions of dollars to build parking lots that won't be open for years and would lose money anyway. The budget deficit can be solved either by raising more money or cutting service. If the choice is to raise money by charging more for parking that is going to fill up anyway, or cutting actual transit service, the choice is easy. You do whatever you can to keep your service and your riders. Cheap parking is the only non-essential on the list.

by BeyondDC on Feb 23, 2009 4:38 pm  

WMATA has a massive budget deficit in 2009

When hasn't it had a deficit? You're crying wolf with that one.

by MPC on Feb 23, 2009 4:42 pm  

David,

Parking garages recoup their cost usually within 5-7 years, the rest is pretty much profit. For instance the Shady grove parking lot cost $27.4M. The parking lot has 2,140 spots. Remember that the parking spot is not only brining in $5/day, it is bringing in a Metro rider that is spending around $9 for their trip. So that equates to $14/parking spot/day or approx $30k/day in parking revenue for that garage. 242 working days a year equals $7.2 million/year; the parking lot is pretty much paid off in 4 years.

by RJ on Feb 23, 2009 4:45 pm  

Of the proposed bus service cuts, many are in the suburbs and serve Metro stations that have parking. If Metro cuts those bus routes, don't you think that will decrease ridership? Or increase demand for parking? Or both? If raising parking fees allows these bus routes to be kept, at least there will still be bus service for the people who are "priced out" of parking.

And yes, Jasper, I live in the suburbs. I know what bus service is like out here. But it's better than nothing. If bus service is cut back, then what are people who are "timed out" of parking supposed to do?

by Johanna on Feb 23, 2009 4:47 pm  

So, let's not screw people out of their money then. If the price can be increased at the current level of demand while maintaining nearly full occupancy, that's great.

How about offering incentives for carpoolers? If a car shows up with 3 people in it, charge them a lower rate. Reserve them a 'Hollywood' spot. That way you're both getting more revenue and more riders out of the same parking structure.

Of course, that would likely require someone to actually determine how many people are in the car, but there would naturally be some carpooling with an increase in price anyway.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2009 4:57 pm  

Privatize the spaces and allow them to be securitized. I guarantee that all the spots will be filled 100% of the time. Markets would be cleared much better this way then through non-market pricing by a Metro bureaucrat.

I'm actually halfway serious.

by MPC on Feb 23, 2009 5:00 pm  

@Steve -- well you can't say we don't have the full range of views: Won't have an effect on ridership/traffic; will increase ridership; will decrease ridership/increase traffic.

that's better than two economists usually do.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 5:01 pm  

@Alex B.-forget slugging. I'm standing outside the parking lot, and for a buck getting in each car. Get back out and lather, rinse repeat all morning.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 5:03 pm  

@MPC -- I agree. I don't understand why the garages aren't private already. Let an investor build the lot, with what is essentially a guaranteed revenue stream. Let the private investor securitize through construction bonds. Why should WMATA be operating parking lots?

If necessary impose certain constraints--e.g., must accept smarttrip. weekend parking must be free (perhaps, or except special events), and so on.

by ah on Feb 23, 2009 5:07 pm  

All of the suggestions on this blog seem to involve making me pay more money, either in taxes or fees. What did I ever do to you?

by Nathan on Feb 23, 2009 5:39 pm  

WMATA's budget deficit is NOT make believe. It's hard to have a serious conversation with anybody who maintains otherwise, given this: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1714

Excuse me for citing the wrong fiscal year, however.

by BeyondDC on Feb 23, 2009 5:46 pm  

RJ, You can't add the money spent on the trip to the parking fee in order to say the parking garage is paid off in a certain amount of years. The trip costs money as well, does it not? Besides, garages don't maintain themselves - there must be some amount of money spent yearly (I don't have any idea how much it is) that will add to original construction cost. Then we need to add money to refurbish and repair as structures get older and deteriorate from use - not a bad thing, but still present. Finally, if the garage is financed through bonds or other loans, interest will accrue.

In short, the 27 million that the Shady Grove Garage cost - it is only 27 million if you pay up front. Every subsequent day will add new costs. I highly recommend anyone who is interested to read "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup. There is extensive treatment of the price of parking structures (among many other parking related matters), showing it isn't nearly as simple as we think it is.

by Chris Seay on Feb 23, 2009 6:10 pm  

Chris,

You are right, but parking fees also go up and 5-7 years is a relative short time for a structure whose expected lifespan is around 35-40 years. Yes there is also the cost of the trip, however, without that parking spot you are also missing a rider that is not covering the cost of Metro. In Metro's case, parking and a rider go hand in hand; even if the cost of parking was revenue neutral, the fare that rider brings in helps offsets the overall cost of Metro. In Metro 's case they are in the red, without parking they would be even deeper.

by RJ on Feb 23, 2009 6:28 pm  

RJ, Here's a good site that explains how having WMATA build parking garages is a money loser. This is one reason you can't privatize them. The other is, as Michael points out, that a private company would want profit maximization, which might mean only selling half the spots.

Steve, we're reducing demand for parking, not transit. Reducing demand for parking might increase demand for transit.

Alex, the incentive for carpoolers is splitting the parking fee.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 6:38 pm  

David C: That's an interesting site but it must be fairly out of date because they cite a maximum parking fee of $2.25 per day. Do you know when it's from?

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 6:46 pm  

It is a bit out of date. It's from 2003. If you go to the programs page you'll find the Metro Access Fact Sheet under all the 2003 reports. The whole Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities site is a bit out of date as they merged with the Coalition for Smarter Growth a couple of years ago. But not much has changed in 5 years.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 6:54 pm  

Here's their solution to the budget crunch back then. It has a lot of the same questions people brought up today.

by David C on Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm  

Does anyone remember what years the 10% bulk fare bonus was in effect? It went away in 2003 but I don't know when it started.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 23, 2009 8:59 pm  

David,

Those numbers are interesting; however I would like to see current numbers, from a more independent non-advocacy point of view. To be fair their claim in 2003 that our current rate structure gets Metro closer to a revenue neutral position. However,I would challenge that the cost of parking vrs feeder system. Their example is suitable for close in metro stations (RI Station), however when considering the more far out metro stations the cost of a feeder system would be cost prohibitive. For instance the Franconia Springfield Station pulls riders from Burke, Franconia, Springfield area, Lorton, an points further south, to establish a feeder system with this reach would be very expensive with very long bus ride and in the end unattractive. I feel you just can't take away the link between parking and riding revenue, at least at these far out stations. One day when the areas around the outlying stations become more dense, I think you will be able to trade parking slots for bus seats.

by RJ on Feb 23, 2009 10:03 pm  

RJ: Parking fees and Metro fares cannot be added together to come up with a payback period for parking garages.

While Metro operates the lots that are on its property, Metro does not build parking garages. They are built by the jurisdiction in which they are located. For example, the $27 million garage at Shady Grove was built with $9 million grant from the State of Maryland and revenue bonds to be paid from a surcharge on all Metro parking in the County.

Even when Metro collects the parking fees from a garage, polices the garages, and owns the land they sit on, they are ultimately the responsibility of the different jurisdictions.

There is nothing to stop a private developer from constructing parking garages if they think they can make money on it. They would have to have the patience and tenacity to contend with Metro if the facility would be on or connected to WMATA property.

by Stanton Park on Feb 24, 2009 1:19 pm  

I was just reading on Dr. G about the increases in tax-free transit fares from $120 to $230 a month. That may give metro reason to increase fares and parking. People will be able to deduct more of that cost, so it's a roundabout way of getting uncle sam to pitch in.

by David C on Feb 25, 2009 3:58 pm  

Why not build more parking at the stations that completely fill? Charging more would be difficult at best since you would significantly tip the scales toward slugging and renting out a spot downtown. At metro stations where real-estate is a premium; underground, more levels, or satellite parking areas with a shuttle service....just a few ideas.

by Nathan on Jul 15, 2009 10:20 am  

@Nathan: Depends on how much drivers will pay to park. If WMATA were charging much more per day for parking, then I could see building more spaces. But right now, the price WMATA charges would not pay for additional spaces underground (cost: $50,000 per added space or more), and would barely pay for additional spaces in an above-ground structure (cost (less than underground).

by Michael Perkins on Jul 15, 2009 10:47 am