Parking
Why should the most convenient parking spaces also be free?
People are used to paying a little more for convenience. We generally pay more for food prepared in a restaurant, for pre-packaged convenience foods, and even pre-made mixes than for consumer staples. We pay more for tickets through a ticket broker to save us the trouble of going to the box office. We even pay more for groceries, hardware, or other goods if we buy them at a small shop close to home as opposed to driving to a much larger store further away.
Photo by erin_johnson.
Arlington recently proposed changes to its parking policies, including allowing charging for metered parking after 6 pm on weekdays and extending hours to weekends. This would be similar to charging for convenience. Right now you're getting convenient spaces for free, but so is everyone else, so they're usually gone before you find one.
Recently, I went out to eat at a restaurant on Fairfax Drive in the Virginia Square area. I tried to find a parking space, but since it was after 6pm, spaces on the main street were completely full. I wasn't familiar with this restaurant's off-street parking situation (free parking after 6 pm in a rear surface lot), but I drove around the block until I found that street parking was half empty. This is only one block away but the difference in occupancy was significant. The free parking lot for the restaurant was nearly empty (see map).
View Virginia Square Parking Map in a larger map.
The problem with this situation is that some people prefer cheap parking even if it's less convenient, and some people are willing to pay more for convenient parking. San Francisco recently had a study (PDF) where pedestrians who drove to an area were asked whether they would pay extra for more available parking. It's not surprising that most said they would.
By making all metered parking free after 6 pm and on weekends, even where spaces are crowded, everyone competes for the same parking spaces. No one has an incentive to look in the back until they've looked to see if there's a convenient space in the front. If Arlington were to charge for just the spaces on the main street, some people would park and pay, and some people would find the free spaces on side streets or one block away. Some people would even use the free parking lot that the restaurant was likely required to provide.
This is pretty common in downtown areas. Where parking is free, the most convenient spaces fill up quickly, giving the impression that it's hard to find a space. When you really look at all the available spaces, including local parking garages and side streets, there's more available parking than at first glance. For the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, Arlington has a good map of the off-street parking garages available to visitors.
Since Arlington's proposed policy will only allow parking charges where there is demonstrated demand for parking, it's hard to say that it will scare away customers. More likely they'll just find the other spaces that aren't obvious at first glance. If customers are really being scared away, demand will fall, and prices will fall to compensate.
The problem with all meters being free after 6 pm is that the convenient spaces are also free spaces. By charging for the more convenient spaces, some demand can be shifted to nearby spaces and off-street lots, and people will be able to choose lower prices or more convenience, just like they do already for most other consumer transactions.
 | Michael Perkins blogs about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.    |
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
by Reid on Oct 8, 2009 11:42 am • link • report
1) you don't know the restaurant very well since you missed their parking lot
2) you don't think parking a block away is "convenient"
My micro-point is there are a limited number of blocks on the W-B corridor where moving to a post-6 PM paid parking would make a difference, and in all those cases there is plenty of street parking after 6 one or two blocks away.
True story: last week I needed to buy some flowers. I chose to drive 1.5 miles down Lee HIghway, rather than go to a florist in Rossyln, because I didn't want to pay for parking. It was 5 PM.
And if you want convenience, make dinner reservations at 6 and grab the free parking in front of the restaurant. ;-)
Macropoint, moving paid parking to a post 6PM time frame is a revenue grab, and one that isn't going to work well in Arlington.
I'd rather see Arlington work on reducing TRAFFIC on wilson, which is starting to get pretty nasty at times. Lunch is very bad.
by charlie on Oct 8, 2009 12:29 pm • link • report
I can understand why the county is doing this, but I don't care for it, as long as they don't go overboard, I think I can live with it. But in general, nickel and diming people is something I'm weary of. There needs to be some limits.
by Vik on Oct 8, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report
by Nate on Oct 8, 2009 12:46 pm • link • report
a. Arlington should not make parking more expensive
b. Arlington should do something about all those cars on Wilson driving to not-more-expensive parking spots.
Do you not see the problem with those two goals?
Sometimes I wonder if pedestrians should walk around with a huge frame hanging off their shoulders. Then maybe we'd start to realize that despite all the space they take up, cars do not bring a proportionate amount of people to a place.
by Reid on Oct 8, 2009 12:55 pm • link • report
by Simon on Oct 8, 2009 12:58 pm • link • report
by Jack Meoff on Oct 8, 2009 1:21 pm • link • report
Recently, the wife and I went to Mei's Asian Bistro (which was great, btw; it's right behind Mason Law School, facing Washington Blvd; in the evenings, they have free parking in the car repair place across the street.
In Clarendon, it's pretty easy to park on the street in Lyon Village, if you don't mind walking a few blocks.
Charging for parking with be a death knell for many restaurants. Already we don't eat in DC very often--largely because of how difficult and expensive it is to find parking. If we can park for free at restaurants in Falls Church, Fairfax, and Alexandria, then that's where we'll go.
If Arlington wants to bring in more money quick, they should have cops waiting at the I-66 on ramp to enforce the HOV law every day; as it is, they're there about twice a week at most. They could also charge for parking in the I-66/Quincy garage.
By the way, there would be even more available on-street spots near Fairfax Drive if the County hadn't blocked off what were some through streets there (Taylor, Utah, Stuart). GGW ran a post last week about such retrofit cul-de-sacs in Fairfax but failed to note their existence in the urbanists' can-do-no-wrong crown jewel of Arlington.
by JB on Oct 8, 2009 2:15 pm • link • report
by charlie on Oct 8, 2009 2:37 pm • link • report
Spots in Clarendon on Wilson/Clarendon and a block or so in tend to fill up in the early evening. Michael is talking about charging for those highly desirable spaces (which will encourage turnover, which will actually make it more likely that you will find a space). Parking in the neighborhoods would still be free.
by Esmeralda on Oct 8, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report
As to Clarendon, I almost never go there anymore.
by JB on Oct 8, 2009 3:13 pm • link • report
I think it's fair to say there's going to be a selection bias if easy free parking is a requirement for one's choice of restaurant.
by thm on Oct 8, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report
Taylor, Utah, and Stuart streets are still through streets for cyclists and pedestrians, so they don't impede walkability at least.
by Scott on Oct 8, 2009 4:54 pm • link • report
You did say the reason you don't eat out in DC is because parking is expensive or difficult to find. I'm just saying I don't think the restaurants there particularly miss you.
by Esmeralda on Oct 8, 2009 5:03 pm • link • report
@Reid: My overall point was that consumers are used to paying something extra for convenience. Most of the time you would pay a fee to buy tickets (e.g., through Fandango) rather than at the box office (like at the movie theater).
@Charlie: Hadn't ever been to this restaurant. Besides, if there are spaces right out front, why not try to get one of those since they're more convenient? Since I parked in the back, I had to climb over a railing and jump down about a 3 foot drop with an infant in a Bjorn and my two-year-old son to get to the front of the building (the other way around is better, turns out!).
Parking a block away is still very good, but it's less convenient than just parking out front. I think my overall point was that these conditions are hyper-local, in that the conditions can change block-by-block rather than between general areas.
As far as it being a "revenue grab", it's kind of a loaded term. Will Arlington get more revenue from this? Probably. I've seen many more metered blocks that are overfull than too empty, indicating that prices are below equilibrium. California has pretty strict rules as far as what you can call a "tax" and what you can call a "user fee", because you have to get something like 2/3 voter approval for taxes.
Parking fees, when they're related to a goal like driving occupancy or turnover, are user fees, according to California courts.
@Simon, I'll try most restaurants that offer me a coupon once. They were decent, not the best and not the worst.
Arlington should really devote the extra revenue to local area improvement.
by Michael Perkins on Oct 8, 2009 11:41 pm • link • report
Add a Comment