We like to give readers the chance to ask their own bleg — i.e., to use this blog to beg for ideas or information. Here’s an interesting one from a reader named Philip . I look forward to your input; you can send your own bleg suggestions here.
Many cities around the country have parking problems in their urban neighborhoods.
For example, the city of Baltimore is thousands of parking spaces short in its popular neighborhoods southeast of downtown. The result is that people park illegally, which leads to unsafe situations (e.g. blocking alleys or fire hydrants) and lots of parking tickets.
The city doesn’t really have a way to increase the space available for parking because, like many cities, the budget is tight and buying urban land to turn into parking lots is prohibitively expensive. The problem is only going to get worse, as many formerly run-down, empty homes are being renovated, and the new inhabitants bring cars with them.
What are some ways to fix the problem?
Reducing the need for car ownership is one possibility. Improved public transport would help this, but public transport is very expensive.
How about a tax on large cars? If all of the cars were smaller, more cars would fit in the same area. Or, even more drastic, how about a ban on SUVs and pick-up trucks? A limit of one car per household would also make a difference.
Lots of cities need ideas on how to tackle these problems. Maybe the Freakonomics.com readership could help.
Two quick things to add to Philip’s bleg: there’s a movement in the U.K. to base parking charges on the size of your car, even in your own driveway. Also, one big negative externality produced by scarce parking is congestion caused by cars circling for spots (to say nothing of the added pollution from these same cars).
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I’m not sure if I understand the part about taxing my car in my own driveway.
Still, I like the tax concept, but you could adjust it by simply painting smaller parking spots, right? And then ticketing if your car isn’t within the lines? Wouldn’t that have the same net effect as a tax?
Shouldn’t the market adjust, thought, and see vacant lots turned into parking decks if there is a demand for the spaces?
Finally, college campuses (and many cities) already have parking permits which must be purchased. That could work too.
I do not believe that big cars really affect number of cars that can be parked in a meaningful way. Small cars in general are not small enough to make any real difference, and the cost of re-striping parking spaces (and moving meters) would be far too expensive to justify.
Congestion taxes on cars in central areas of cities (during certain times) can make a difference (locals get a permit for the small area they live in). But, if you use congestion taxing, you need to have outlying places to park and shuttles that run frequently enough. Of course, local businesses hate congestion taxing since it keeps customers out of the downtown.
This is a hard one to tackle, and I’m not sure that Baltimore is the best city to look to as a basis for a model. I (a Baltimorean) think that the biggest parking challenge here is a lack of useful public transportation. There have been many articles about Baltimore’s nonsensical public transit system, so I won’t go into that; however, given that there is no option to take a bus from my trendy neighborhood to another trendy neighborhood to hang amongst the hipsters, I need to drive. Neighborhoods with serious parking permit programs in Baltimore (Otterbein, Charles Village) still have serious parking problems.
To solve a parking problem, I think cities need to implement several complementary activities at once, to simultaneously increase push and pull factors influencing reduced car ownership. These may include improved public transit, taxes on car ownership for second and third vehicles, tax abatements for families with no cars, etc.
One problem with urban housing, especially in cities like Baltimore, is that the majority of the residences were built at the turn of the (last) century. These make for beautiful brownstones with no space for garages or driveways. Thus, residents battle for street parking.
Perhaps, as these “formerly run-down, empty homes are being renovated,” homeowners could get a tax incentive to build a garage into the new design. This would cost the local governments (i.e. ME, the local taxpayer) virtually nothing, create parking on the car owners’ own property, and free up one more space for the rest of us.
I have always wondered why companies do not completely embrace the vast benefits of telecommuting. It could very well be the answer to most of the congestion and parking-related problems that heavily urbanized cities are facing in the US today.
Also, I don’t think I agree with Philip when he says that public transportation is expensive. What public transportation is, in most cities in the US, is inadequate.
I also cringe at ideas that involve limiting people’s freedom; restricting households to only one car is a spectacularly poor idea – what if the principals in the house work in different cities? So is an outright ban on SUVs – what happens when people have more than two kids? Restrict the number of children per household, perhaps. How illogically circular.
Currently, entry into congested parts of cities is free, but parking isn’t, which, as pointed out by SJD, leads to people circling around for (possibly free) parking. My solution is to flip the problem on its head – a prohibitively large congestion charge, coupled with free parking.
Philip, where do you live?
I live in Harbor East, where I park my car in my building’s garage (which of course was a parking lot before it was built a couple years ago).
Still, I know the horror stories from friends of mine that live in Fells Point and Canton. I tend to never favor an outright ban of anything (such as “no more than one car per household”) and while I understand the unpopularity of being asked to pay to park your own car in front of your own house, I feel that most people completely ignore the externalities of parking. (That is, every time you park in a space, you are taking away a space from another person.)
To me, one of the main problems is that there is too much free and cheap parking. Permits should be mandatory (and enforced!) and hourly parking should range in the dollars/hour, not quarters. Businesses can step up too: it is unbelievable that no one in Canton offers valet, unlike many places in Harbor East and fells. Even at upwards of $6/car, it is better than circling the block for 20 minutes!
It seems like you’ve identified an issue (people parking illegally) and then jumped to other things you don’t like (cars, especially big cars) and solutions that enact your personal preferences, but only indirectly do anything related to the problem you’ve identified.
Why don’t you simply increase the average “cost” of parking illegally and then let private individuals sort out the most efficient ways to avoid that cost?
You can do things as simple as step up parking fines and enforcement, beyond the level of “most money coming into the city”, which is where it is likely currently at, to “nobody wants to park illegally because they’re sure to get caught and have to pay a fine”. Sure, that’ll cost the city a little parking revenue as people catch on, but the goal is less illegal parking, not more revenue, right?
You could also make a policy that the fire department is allowed to smash any cars parked in front of fire hydrants that they notice while driving around town. (http://funny-online-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/07/pic-dont-mess-with-fire-department.html). Don’t even make them wait for an actual fire. People will then stop parking in front of fire hydrants.
If you want to be academic about it all, calculate the total externalities of parking illegally and impose them on the people who park illegally.
Agressive law-enforcement in a downtown area (e.g. things like red-light cameras, as well as trolling lots and streets for things like expired registrations, frequent drunk-driving or seat-belt checks) — and doing so VERY publicly — may make a relatively small but potentially troublesome group of drivers decide not to venture downtown. For that matter, if the enfrocement is aggressive enough, it might repel conscientious drivers!
But aside from discouraging people from driving to downtown areas (which, I suspect, will NOT be a popular idea among the owners of urban businesses, who will undoubtedly be harmed by such an effort), there is a way to help the problem, at least a little, and that is to maximize the availability of parking spaces that are there.
Lots of people do things like park OVER the lines instead of BETWEEN them, or else park in such a way that an adjoining space cannot fit a vehicle. Have those cars ticketed and towed, even if they’re in private garages/lots. Also, strictly enforce time limits, “compact-car only” designations, etc. … again, even in privately-owned facilities.
To save enforcement costs, deputize some residents downtown to issue parking citations. They could be volunteers or minimal-time workers.