- Free parking is not free. More importantly, its costs are not eliminated, only hidden, displaced, and diffused throughout the economy.
- In this sense, free parking functions as an invisible tax.
A few years ago, the Davis City Council bowed to public pressure and declined to implement paid parking in the downtown core. That decision went against the recommendations of a specially appointed task force and against decades of research in urban economics and transportation planning.
At the time, the outcome was framed as a pragmatic compromise intended to protect local businesses and preserve downtown accessibility, but in reality it reflected a deeper and recurring problem in Davis civic life: when evidence conflicts with political discomfort, evidence often loses.
That decision looks markedly different when viewed through the lens of The High Cost of Free Parking by the late Donald Shoup, the UCLA professor whose work fundamentally reshaped how cities across the world understand parking policy.
Shoup’s core claim is deceptively simple: free parking is not free. More importantly, its costs are not eliminated, only hidden, displaced, and diffused throughout the economy.
When parking appears free to drivers, its cost has merely been shifted elsewhere: developers absorb it and pass it along through higher rents and home prices, businesses recover it through higher prices for goods and services, employers bear it through lower wages, fewer benefits, or reduced investment, and cities subsidize it through general funds, spreading the expense across taxpayers regardless of whether they drive or benefit directly.
In this sense, free parking functions as an invisible tax.
It is regressive because it forces non-drivers, including lower-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities who do not drive, to subsidize those who do.
It is inefficient because it encourages overconsumption (of parking).
And it is distortionary because it reshapes behavior and land use in ways that appear natural but are, in fact, the product of deliberate policy choices.
Shoup’s argument is not merely about budgets and balance sheets; it is about incentives: when something is priced at zero, people consume more of it than they otherwise would, drivers circle blocks looking for curb spaces rather than parking once and walking, short trips that could be made on foot or by bicycle shift into cars, congestion increases, emissions rise, and downtown streets become less pleasant for everyone.
As Shoup explains, this is not accidental: by hiding the true cost of parking, cities effectively subsidize driving while penalizing alternatives, forcing walking, cycling, and transit to compete against a mode of transportation whose most expensive input—land—is treated as if it were free.
The result is a built environment that privileges cars and constrains choice, even as residents believe they are simply responding to market forces.
One of Shoup’s most powerful contributions is his use of analogy to strip away the technical veneer of parking policy.
In The High Cost of Free Parking, Shoup asks readers to imagine a law requiring every restaurant to provide a free dessert to every diner, regardless of whether the diner wants dessert, a mandate no restaurant could meet without raising prices, shrinking portions, or cutting quality elsewhere.
The dessert would not be free at all; its cost would be embedded in the price of every meal, paid even by people who never eat dessert.
Parking mandates work the same way.
Local governments typically require developers to provide a minimum number of off-street parking spaces for every home, office, store, or restaurant.
Parking is expensive to build and maintain, particularly structured parking, and because developers cannot give it away for free, they recover the cost indirectly: rents rise, home prices increase, retail prices climb, density drops, and everyone pays whether or not they own a car.
The analogy matters because it exposes how bundling hides costs and distorts choice: when dessert is bundled into the price of a meal, diners cannot signal whether they value it, and when parking is bundled into housing or retail, consumers cannot signal how much parking they actually need.
Drivers and non-drivers are treated the same, leaving no incentive to economize, and innovation is suppressed because mandates eliminate flexibility, preventing developers from experimenting with lower parking ratios or different designs even when market demand would support them.
Subsidies do more than accommodate demand—they create it: just as free dessert encourages overeating, free parking encourages excessive driving, congestion, and sprawl, illustrating how policy does not merely respond to preferences but actively shapes them.
For a city like Davis, which regularly grapples with housing affordability, traffic congestion, and climate commitments, the implications are profound.
Parking mandates raise the cost of housing directly by forcing the construction of expensive infrastructure that is bundled into rent or mortgage payments.
They raise it indirectly by limiting density and reducing the number of homes that can be built on a given parcel.
In effect, parking requirements operate as a hidden tax on housing, one that prices out lower-income residents while subsidizing car ownership.
Shoup’s research and subsequent studies have shown that parking can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of housing, even for small apartments. Those costs are borne by all residents, including those who do not own cars. In cities facing acute housing shortages, parking policy is not peripheral. It is central.
And yet, in Davis, the political debate over downtown parking rarely engaged with these realities. Instead, opposition was framed in terms of fear: fear that customers would stay away, fear that businesses would suffer, fear that downtown would decline.
The research presented by the parking task force and echoed by Shoup’s work suggested the opposite. Properly priced parking improves turnover, increases access, and benefits local businesses by ensuring that spaces are available for customers rather than occupied all day by employees or long-term parkers.
This was not a case of experts versus common sense but a case of evidence versus intuition, and intuition won.
Davis often prides itself on its commitment to science, data, and evidence-based decision-making, yet that commitment has proven conditional.
When the science aligns with comfort, it is embraced; when it challenges deeply held assumptions or threatens short-term political backlash, it is quietly set aside.
Parking policy sits alongside fluoridation and green waste as another example of a community struggling to translate knowledge into action.
The refusal to implement paid parking did not eliminate parking costs; it merely ensured that they would continue to be paid in less visible, less equitable, and less rational ways, with residents paying through higher rents.
Shoppers pay through higher prices, workers through suppressed wages, and taxpayers through subsidies; the cost did not disappear—it was redistributed.
Shoup’s broader point is that transparency matters.
Pricing makes costs visible, visibility enables choice, and choice leads to efficiency and fairness; when parking is priced, people can decide whether driving is worth it.
When parking is unbundled from housing, residents can choose whether to pay for a space or not.
When revenue from parking is returned to neighborhoods, resistance declines because people see tangible benefits.
None of this requires hostility toward cars or drivers; it requires honesty about trade-offs, because the debate over paid parking in Davis was never really about meters or permits but about whether the city was willing to acknowledge basic economic reality and align policy with its stated values.
Six years later, the core issue has not changed: Davis can continue to cling to the comforting fiction that free parking is free, or it can confront what decades of research already demonstrate—parking always has a price, and the only question is who pays it, how transparently, and with what consequences.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I thought Davis was done with this issue, why are you now regurgitating it?
Which “Davis”?
It’s not about our city or its citizens being done with the issue; the issue is not done with Davis (and everywhere).
In related news, I’m using my solar-powered AI device to find and replace some of the occurrences of “intuition” in this piece with that scary word… “narcissism”.
Anyway, thank you Mr Greenwald! (I always hated that for many years that for many years your go-to photo of Davis Downtown was 2nd Street from roughly in front of Mishka’s… absent of cars — The other day that street was still full of cars, with zero bicycles parked at the big stall in front of the Varsity. The cycling modal share in Davis for adults without a campus destination is really low, based on observations such as that one – there’s chronically so many empty parking racks all over the city, even while school is in session – and what’s possible to get out of census related activities.)
So yeah, “stated values”: Not Village No Farms is going to create a huge demand for parking in Downtown: Not only new people driving Downtown directly, but those who drive outside of town for work, and who understandably want to visit Downtown afterwards. To be fair, this is informed intuition: is it mentioned in the drafty EIR?
It’s true that parking spots are not free; that’s why off-street parking minimums were required.
Otherwise, it’s existing residents and businesses that “pay for” that increased demand – one way or another. Usually, via a resulting “shortage”.
Same is true for roads, freeways etc., – which are then in “short supply” in relation to the increased demand.
Also resulting in increased greenhouse gasses from being stuck in traffic, circling blocks looking for parking, etc.
As a side note, I visited the new mall twice before the holidays, and barely found parking in back of the mall – adjacent to where employees park.
I’ll take on one point that Ron raises here that Shoup directly addresses…
Shoup takes direct aim at the practice of scaling parking supply to peak usage, which he identifies as one of the most wasteful features of modern land-use regulation. Parking minimums are typically set to accommodate the highest possible demand, often observed only a few hours per year, such as during holiday shopping seasons or special events. The result is large amounts of parking that sit empty most of the time, consuming valuable land and driving up development costs without providing commensurate benefit.
Shoup argues that designing cities around peak parking demand is analogous to sizing every restaurant, freeway, or stadium to handle its busiest day of the year and then tolerating chronic underuse the rest of the time. This approach does not solve congestion or scarcity; it institutionalizes inefficiency. The cost of building and maintaining this surplus parking is still paid year-round, folded into housing prices, retail costs, and public subsidies, even though the demand that justified it is intermittent.
The crowded mall experience Ron describes fits this pattern precisely. Peak demand appears briefly and unpredictably, while the oversupply required to eliminate it would impose permanent costs. Shoup’s conclusion is that pricing and management, not overbuilding, are the appropriate tools for handling peak demand. By allowing prices or time limits to adjust during periods of high use, cities can accommodate peak demand without forcing everyone to pay for vast amounts of parking that remain empty most of the year.
Shoup’s argument is not that parking should be eliminated or ignored. It is that pretending parking is free—or trying to solve scarcity through blunt mandates—produces the very shortages, congestion, and emissions critics worry about. Pricing parking does not create demand; it reveals it. And once demand is visible, cities can manage it rationally instead of chasing an illusion of abundance that never arrives.
“Shoup’s conclusion is that pricing and management, not overbuilding, are the appropriate tools for handling peak demand. By allowing prices or time limits to adjust during periods of high use, cities can accommodate peak demand without forcing everyone to pay for vast amounts of parking that remain empty most of the year.”
This is yet another way of forcing existing residents and businesses to pay for additional development.
In other words, we had a system that worked fine, until others push an area to accommodate more development.
Same is true with roads, freeways, etc.
In fact, it’s development itself which causes the reconsideration of a system that worked well. Developers and government entities look at the spots (that others already paid for) and privatize them for their own desires, thereby allowing them to avoid mitigating the costs that they create.
There’s a reason that mitigation fees/requirements such as off-street parking minimum exist – and the reasons for them haven’t changed.
The only thing that’s changed is that developers and their political allies are teaming up to shift those costs to existing residents and businesses. In this case, by charging for parking that was already paid for years ago.
You have this backwards… your framing is essentially the status quo bias that Donald Shoup spends The High Cost of Free Parking dismantling. Shoup’s core point is that the system did not “work fine.” It only appeared to work because the costs were hidden, misallocated, and socialized. In other words, he wants to put the cost on the people driving rather than everyone else.
Why did Shoup believe that it didn’t “work fine”?
Is it his contention that reducing parking reduces driving, or to give up their cars (and any use of private vehicles)? And that visitors, delivery people, contractors, etc. – don’t use parking spaces?
Pretty sure that a lot of people from Davis go to Costco (where there’s plenty of “free” parking, and the spaces are wide) rather than deal with Davis’ offerings – ALREADY.
I can tell the difference myself between the two towns regarding this type of thing. Why pay a premium for a worse experience, and more-expensive product?
Actually, that even extends into grocery stores (such as Nugget). You really have to like crowds, narrow aisles, narrow parking spaces (where you’re more-likely to get a door ding) and expensive items to shop there.
Perhaps creating more hassle and expense causes people to drive MORE (farther) than they otherwise would. Have there been any studies which address that?
“Is it his contention that reducing parking reduces driving?”
Again: He’s not arguing about reducing parking, he’s arguing that we need to properly charge for public parking.
Shoup’s broader research shows that paying for parking reduces driving. That’s a key reason why UCD charges so much for on campus parking, and why only 30% of UCD workers who live within Davis drive to work.
Davis residents have been complaining about a lack of parking in downtown for years. Development has had nothing to do with this situation as our city population has remained stagnant. That complaint is really about lack of parking at the specific location where they want to go. (I’ve NEVER failed to find parking downtown in 30 years so long as I’m willing to walk a couple of blocks.) Shoup’s solution is the Occam’s razor–those who value parking the most will be willing to pay for it. Sacramento has discovered this in Midtown and parking is now easier to find than before the installation of meters. Yet Midtown is more vibrant than it was 20 years ago.
This is why we should end free parking in the core downtown area. For businesses, they will see INCREASED business because patrons will more easily find parking near them–the cost will be trivial. Customers will not drive 10 miles to save 50 cents or even two dollars. But they will appreciate increased parking availability.
“In this case, by charging for parking that was already paid for years ago.”
Thank you. The taxpayers already paid for the roads and parking spaces. Our taxes also already pay for upkeep on those roads and parking spaces. This would be like forcing a homeowner to build a driveway at their own expense and then charging them to park in their own driveway.
And as far as free things how about public libraries, public parks, public sidewalks, public bike paths, etc…
I could gone on forever. Why not have to pay to use those free things too?
David is doing a lot of spinning and twisting while trying to justify charging parking fees.
Keith, you’re describing sunk costs. Shoup is analyzing marginal costs, scarcity, and allocation. Those are not the same thing, and confusing them is exactly how cities ended up subsidizing cars at the expense of housing, equity, and urban efficiency.
“This would be like forcing a homeowner to build a driveway at their own expense and then charging them to park in their own driveway.”
You might think this is something that would never occur, but officials in San Francisco recently proposed a tax for people who already have driveways, in order to fund their declining-ridership public transit system.
Davis increasingly reminds me of San Francisco, in many ways.
A point that he raises is that because of garage curb cuts, a huge percentage of curb space in residential is being wasted, so why shouldn’t a city allow home owners to rent out those spaces during times when they don’t need the access?
David, why are you bringing this issue back up at this time?
Is this something the city is thinking about approaching again?
I just read the book, it’s on topic, and it’s January 2. I’m sure the issue will be revised as the downtown continues to struggle and it wasn’t really resolved the last time, but this was driven mostly by my reading and the calendar.
A city charging a permanent tax for a driveway cut is not the same thing as a homeowner (who is already paying taxes – including for sidewalks and repairs) the ability to rent out a space in their own driveway.
Not to mention all of the fees already paid by the homeowner, when they purchase a house (which are baked-into the cost). It is others who want to ensure that new developments don’t pay for the costs that they create.
The primary purpose of curb cuts (also called “driveways”) is to allow access to off-street parking. And if anyone is blocking that access, then the off-street parking cannot be accessed.
The City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which I approved as a member of the NRC, includes revisiting this issue as a means of reducing GHG emissions. So it’s still a viable option.
Keith wrote: “Our taxes also already pay for upkeep on those roads and parking spaces”.
Huh? So many roads in town are in terrible condition, often mentioned as annoying for driving… Rarely mentioned as dangerous for cycling.
Here are some asphalt chunks I collected from a supposedly safe route to school: https://photos.app.goo.gl/9DgJYfcWZLFd8C7s6
Everyone should ride a bicycle on the big loop in El Macero to understand how it should be in terms of pavement condition (The bike lanes there – also the protected ones on Mace Boulevard – are not as smooth as they could be because the relevant engineers apparently don’t take it into account that the weight of a cyclist and their bike is insufficient to help cure the surface – likely they were taught that it’s okay because vehicles would be parked on the side of a road).
David, “chasing an illusion of abundance that never arrives”. I like that.
“Again: He’s not arguing about reducing parking, he’s arguing that we need to properly charge for public parking.”
O.K. – so he’s not arguing that charging for parking reduces driving.
But the argument he is presenting is not an argument to charge existing residents and businesses for something that they already paid for, in order to accommodate additional development.
And since he’s not arguing that it reduces driving (a perceived “social” benefit – if that was actually true), then the other costs that Keith brought up (e.g., libraries, parks, etc.) should also charge a fee, using that logic.
Personally, I think parents should pay for their own kids (instead of the existing massive subsidies already in place), but that’s a different subject I guess.
“the argument he is presenting is not an argument to charge existing residents and businesses for something that they already paid for, in order to accommodate additional development.”
Correct. He’s arguing that existing residents and businesses and property owners are already paying for the parking and passing them on to others to use for free and that is causing a market problem.
“Correct. He’s arguing that existing residents and businesses and property owners are already paying for the parking and passing them on to others to use for free and that is causing a market problem.”
Who, exactly, does the author think is using those parking spaces? And are existing residents, businesses, and property owners “complaining about” the situation?
Shoup is not arguing that residents consciously complain, “I am subsidizing parking.” His claim is rather that people experience the harms without recognizing the cause.
So far, he hasn’t explained the “harm”.
Parked cars “gather no moss”. (Actually, they do – which is exactly what we want.)
As I’m typing this with my vehicles parked, I’m creating no greenhouse gasses (from that source, at least).
Parked cars are the most environmentally-friendly cars of all – way better than an electric or hybrid car that’s driven all the time.
Even better (for the environment, traffic, and costs) if you’re not out buying a new one every few years.
Tell me again how much a car parked on an existing street (that’s repaved maybe once every 20-30 years) is creating much cost.
Shoup’s harm is that mandatory free parking raises housing costs, wastes valuable land, increases congestion and pollution, and forces non-drivers and lower-income households to subsidize higher-income, multi-car users through hidden, bundled costs. If it feels invisible, that is precisely the harm Shoup is documenting.
“Personally, I think parents should pay for their own kids (instead of the existing massive subsidies already in place), but that’s a different subject I guess.”
This article talks about fairness, how it’s unfair for people who walk or bike to have to pay to maintain auto parking spaces. So is it unfair for people who decide not to have to children to pay taxes on schools and students? You can see where this all leads.
In general, families are the BIGGEST USERS of motor vehicles. That’s why places like Spring Lake appeal to them (minimum 2-car garages).
Ever hear of soccer Moms, as just one example?
These people drive far more often than anyone else.
And when their kids become teens, they want their own cars.
But even the small handful of granola-crunching, non-vehicle Davis residents rely on vehicles – just not their own (e.g., deliveries, contractors, visitors, short-term rental cars, etc.).
So in addition to that, they also demand that others pay for their kids via massive subsidies.
These are the SAME GROUP of people, not two different groups as you describe.
Hopefully, their kids will at least support the massive number of retirees in the system. Though I’m sure that they won’t consider all of the money that was spent on them, before they enter the workforce.
Yes, families drive more – that strengthens Shoup’s argument, not Ron’s. Shoup never disputes that families are heavy users of cars. In fact, that is precisely why pricing and unbundling are necessary.
And yet, some interested parties are specifically advocating for developments that appeal to families.
Families who probably also would not exactly welcome “increased costs” regarding driving/parking.
Your connfusion persists because you are continuing to focus only on out-of-pocket fees while ignoring total household cost, which is exactly what Donald Shoup carefully calculated in book. He is documenting that the current system is already a large, regressive tax on families, one that inflates housing prices and reduces affordability, especially for younger households trying to enter the market. Parking reform does not penalize families; it stops forcing them to prepay for more parking than they may ultimately want or need.
“He is documenting that the current system is already a large, regressive tax on families, one that inflates housing prices and reduces affordability, especially for younger households trying to enter the market.”
You just agreed elsewhere on this page that families are generally the BIGGEST users of private vehicles.
Existing resident families ALREADY BENEFIT from the existing system (more so than any other group), and are not “complaining” about it.
You’re referring to families that DON’T LIVE in a community (and want to export their costs to a pre-existing community when they move in). Including pre-existing families.
This isn’t even a debate – it’s just a fact. It’s a proposal to eliminate a mitigation fee. A fee that others essentially paid for when they moved in.
A redistribution of costs to existing residents, as a direct result of new residents moving in. With an attempt to disguise it as something else.
No existing resident is complaining about “free parking”, other than perhaps a handful of activists who think they aren’t reliant upon motor vehicles simply because they personally don’t have one.
Your conclusion still rests on a mistaken premise about who paid what, and how, which is exactly the accounting error that Shoup corrects.
Shoup’s position is fairness requires unbundling and pricing so that:
• Drivers pay for the costs they impose.
• Non-drivers are no longer forced to subsidize driving.
• Parking supply adjusts to real demand instead of regulatory fiat.
Free parking is not neutral. It is a transfer—from renters to drivers, from the young to the old, from low-income households to higher-income ones, and from future residents to present convenience.
In that sense, parking reform does not create a fairness argument, rather it finally makes fairness visible.
I’m not going to address the schools issue since it is way off topic, would distract from talking about parking, and it brings in a lot of other issues that are different. The primary problem is your argument conflates collective goods with excludable private consumption.
“Drivers” consist of virtually every single existing resident – whether it’s through their own vehicles, or relying upon others to meet their needs.
Truth be told, bicyclists (who are also relying upon vehicles in that same manner – either directly, or indirectly) are getting a “free ride” by not having to pay any additional fees to use public streets. Not a complaint; just an observation.
Not to mention charging EVERYONE for separate bike paths that a relative handful of people regularly use.
Sidewalks fall into that same realm, but are more widely-used.
But again, it’s families who are likely the biggest users of EVERYTHING, and pay the least amount for it in regard to their costs.
Again, there’s all kinds of users of public streets and parking that each/every resident relies upon, whether or not they personally have a car.
Ron is correct on several points here:
• Nearly everyone benefits from transportation systems
• Public streets are shared civic assets
• Infrastructure costs should be discussed honestly
What he does not establish—because it cannot be established—is that these facts justify free, unpriced, exclusive storage of private vehicles on some of the most valuable land in cities, financed by everyone regardless of use.
Cyclists are not getting a free ride either. The problem is that drivers are getting a hidden subsidy.
Shoup’s work exists precisely because conflating those two ideas has distorted urban policy for decades.
“What he does not establish—because it cannot be established—is that these facts justify free, “unpriced, exclusive storage of private vehicles on some of the most valuable land in cities, financed by everyone regardless of use.”
Again, you’re presenting this as if only car-owners “use” those streets/parking spaces. In reality, it’s everyone (either directly, or indirectly) – for the reasons already provided.
And they were already paid for by existing residents/businesses. The only “justification” for implementing an additional charge is to cram in more residences and businesses who aren’t being subject to the same charges that everyone else had to pay for, when they moved in.
Instead, they want to add those costs onto existing residences and businesses.
What’s being proposed is yet another elimination of impact fees.
Truth be told, they likely aren’t charging ENOUGH in impact fees, in regard to the additional demand that’s being created on roadways and freeways (in addition to parking).
Nor are they paying for existing residents’ time and costs when they’re stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
This isn’t rocket science, and people instinctively already know all of this.
By the way, I wonder how much more difficult it would have been to park at University Mall, if the city was successful in compromising it with housing. As it is, the delay in completing it (as a result of civic meddling) ALREADY cost the city and developer a bunch of money.
Parking reform does not exempt new residents from costs. However it does reverse a hidden subsidy that already exists.
Under parking minimums, the cost of parking is embedded in rents and prices, forcing everyone—existing residents included—to pay whether or not they own a car.
Unbundling simply makes those costs visible and assigns them to actual users rather than averaging them across the entire community.
Furthermore, calling this an elimination of impact fees is incorrect, because parking minimums are not impact fees in the first place.
Impact fees are tied to marginal costs imposed by use, while mandatory parking spreads costs regardless of demand or behavior.
Shoup’s framework applies true impact pricing: those who impose greater parking demand pay more, and those who do not are no longer compelled to subsidize it.
“Parking reform does not exempt new residents from costs.”
It does not “totally” exempt them (since they, along with existing residents would then be forced to pay a separate fee as a result of their presence). But it forces a significant percentage of their costs onto existing residents and businesses, since they now would have to pay a “second time” for something they already paid for.
Residents and businesses which have already been paying “their share” for “free parking” ever since they moved to a given community. And are now being asked to pay for a portion of the new residents’ costs.
“Furthermore, calling this an elimination of impact fees is incorrect, because parking minimums are not impact fees in the first place.”
They are indeed a mitigation fee; it’s just that the fee is not paid to the government directly. Theoretically, it could be.
It’s essentially the same type of fee as requiring developers to include Affordable housing WITHIN their own development, rather than pay a separate fee.
You keep missing the same point: existing residents were never paying only “their share” in the first place… This really isn’t about them, it’s about the consumers of the spaces and the fact that those spaces cost – a lot – and get passed on to everyone else.
“You keep missing the same point: existing residents were never paying only “their share” in the first place…”
So what you’re arguing is that existing developments aren’t paying enough, and yet you want to add more.
“This really isn’t about them, it’s about the consumers of the spaces and the fact that those spaces cost – a lot – and get passed on to everyone else.”
Again, you seem to be trying to create a fake division between existing residents (virtually ALL of whom use existing streets and parking spaces, one way or another) while trying to hide the ACTUAL goal of ensuring that new developments don’t pay for the additional demand that they create. I find this frustrating, because it’s so obvious – and yet you don’t acknowledge it.
Existing residents are NOT COMPLAINING about “free parking spaces”, for the most part. It’s only those who want to cram in more housing, who are complaining about it.
Sort of like how those who are opposed to Measure J are the same ones who claim they’re trying to save it.
Who, for some reason, are the same people advocating for developments like DISC (which would increase demand for housing – if successful), while simultaneously complaining about an existing housing shortage.
It’s like Alice in Wonderland on here.
Keith, this is Cecilia responding to your comment, not David. I was reading the article and comments. Should people without children pay to subsidize kid stuff? Hmmm…let’s see…we want kids to not get into trouble, not stealy, paint buildings with graffiti, have a good education and grow up to be responsible, intelligent citizens that fly airplanes, drive safely, bike safely, build safe cars and machinery, study the environment, use science to study and find cures for diseases…you get my point. We may never directly see the benefit of subsidizing kid stuff, but the world and our communities are more safe and better when kids have more opportunities. When we are on an airplane and arrive safely we are thankful the pilot who was once a kid was subsidized to attend the after school program that helped them have an interest and appreciation for aeronautics. The brilliant, late, Delaine Easton said it more eloquently than I ever could, but you get the point I’m sure. *** And before I get an eye roll for commenting under David’s name…Honey, I could not log in under my name for some reason. I didn’t want to wake you up since you get up at 3:00 am and the kids and I have kept you up all week with holiday celebrations! Ha, ha… :-)
Cecilia, I agree with you. I used that as an example of things we pay for that we might not think is fair as a counter argument to what David wrote in his article:
“It is regressive because it forces non-drivers, including lower-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities who do not drive, to subsidize those who do.”
Ron O
You’re argument is like saying that we should get electricity, water and natural gas essentially for free because we already paid for the infrastructure. Apparently you missed that part of economics course that you claimed to attend yesterday that points out that customers need to pay the opportunity cost of using a resource, not the past sunk costs. Those prices provide revenues that go in part to cover those past costs but also to pay for future replacement and enhancements. One important aspect is that we can reduce base taxes by parking revenues used to for roads and parking. You’re stuck thinking about a static system which is in fact dynamic and ever changing.
Thank you, Richard. Notice no answer to a very good reply that covers the bases.
People that drive cars are already paying taxes towards parking spaces on public roads that people who prefer not to drive aren’t paying.
California gas tax revenues can indirectly help maintain parking spaces on public roads to the extent that those spaces are part of the public street system that’s being maintained.
Parking spaces on public roads are part of that street system
Parking lanes and on-street parking spaces are physically part of city streets and public roads. When local governments use transportation funding (including gas tax revenue passed through to them) to:
repave streets,
repair curbs and gutters,
maintain striping and signage,
fix sidewalks adjacent to streets,
those activities inherently benefit the entire street corridor, including the on-street parking spaces. So in that sense, gas tax dollars do help maintain the public road environment that includes on-street parking.
Gas taxes help maintain street surfaces, but they do not come close to covering the full costs of roads or pricing the exclusive, long-term use of scarce curb space to store private vehicles.
Shoup’s point is that general roadway funding is not the same as paying the marginal cost of occupying parking space, which remains heavily subsidized by non-drivers through higher rents, prices, and taxes.
Well, if that’s the case, then maybe they should charge new residents for the additional capacity they require – directly. Either that, or have them sign a waiver stating that they will never own a car, never rely upon anyone who does have a car, never have any deliveries, never use a contractor, never have a visitor, never ride a bicycle or take public transit on public street . . .
(The latter two examples admittedly only require other types of public subsidies – not street parking.)
Otherwise, I think there’s a phrase for that – parking minimums and any other mitigation fee.
But again, EVERYONE relies upon roads and parking spaces, whether they have a personal car or not.
And families are THE BIGGEST users of private vehicles, in general.
That’s part of what Shoup suggests – for example, if you’re a renter who has zero cars, why bundle two parking spaces which are passed on via the rent, why not charge for the amount of spaces actually needed?
I don’t believe that apartments are required to have two parking spaces, and that some of the newer ones do indeed charge for parking spaces.
And those who don’t want to pay that fee would likely search the neighborhood for “free” spots that pre-existing residents have already paid for.
But again, did you not see how vehicle usage is not limited to your “own” vehicle?
I’m sure I missed some other examples of indirect vehicle usage, as well. Garbage pickup, etc.
It must be fun to be in back of a garbage, delivery, contractor, or utility truck blocking a narrow street in The Cannery, though maybe there’s still enough room to go around it. (Perhaps another argument for off-street parking.)
Hopefully, there won’t be a need for a mass evacuation in there.
I was using a concrete example from Shoup’s book to illustrate how bundled or required parking hides real costs, not claiming that every apartment everywhere requires two spaces.
Shoup also addresses spillover directly by pairing paid parking with residential permits or demand-based pricing, which protects existing residents and is why spillover is an argument for doing parking reform correctly, not against it.
And again, indirect reliance on vehicles does not equal direct, rival use of parking space, which is the distinction Shoup is making.
The need for residential permits is yet another example of what occurs when additional development – whether residential or commercial occurs.
Neighborhoods got along just fine without them, until new development occurred. (In the case of Davis, it’s primarily driven by the growth of UCD.)
Indirect reliance upon streets and parking has the EXACT SAME RESULT as direct reliance.
But more to the point: Other than students, what percentage of existing permanent residents have/use vehicles and parking spaces? And are they the ones who are advocating to pay more, for something they already paid for? (I already know the answer to this – from observation and logic alone.)
Ron O
Again, you show your ignorance on the issue. New developments already pay significant development fees per unit that go towards infrastructure costs such as roadways.
And existing residents do not have priority to existing infrastructure and never have. This is fundamental principle in our working market economy. Use of any resource is always contestable by other consumers–whoever is willing to pay a higher price can gain access if the resource is not contractually committed to a single consumer. This is true of parking and roads. Right now, consumers pay for parking with their time through queuing and rescheduling. This has been shown to be an inefficient use of societal resources that increases everyone’s costs. Using prices instead to allocate those resources results in improved efficiency. The next question then is how to address equity concerns such as access for seniors with limited mobility. That’s best done through parking placards in reserved spots, for which we already have the base infrastructure.
Ron O
Free parking is RAISING everyone’s costs, not lowering them, because we have to overinvest in excess parking capacity. Pricing parking lowers that excess subsidy to vehicle use. A siloed myopic view ignores these actual impacts. Shoup explains these consequences more detail.
When I was on the NRC, we proposed that apartment parking costs be separated from rents in both DiSC proposals specifically for this reason. All of us are subsidizing car use by including free parking in apartment rents.
And free parking vastly increases urban sprawl in two ways (and its remarkable that you advocate for free parking given your vehement opposition to sprawl.) First, new housing must increase in acreage to pave over more land for cars to park free. Second, free parking at a destination encourages driving from that sprawling development, which both facilitates more driving over longer distances and increased ownership of vehicles in those developments. Your missing the consequences of your position.
Richard: The cost “is what it is”, though it’s going to vary greatly between a parking garage vs. on-street parking.
Point being that the existing parking was already paid for, and it’s not likely to be very expensive to repave a parking site on a street, especially since they have to periodically repave the street anyway.
By not requiring new developments to pay for the ADDITIONAL costs they create, “someone else” is going to have to pay for it (either in money, time, or both).
By not requiring new developments to pay for the costs they create (e.g., in regard to parking), it seems pretty likely that this will provide yet ANOTHER reason to live in a city near Davis, rather than in Davis itself. Not to mention the additional driving that existing residents will pursue, to go to places like Costco and to get out of the mess that the city is creating for itself.
Regarding separating-out the cost of parking for new apartments, that might work to some degree in regard to discouraging new residents from owning their own cars, unless they can find parking somewhere nearby (in front of some neighbor’s house). I suspect this strategy works better when the city is attempting to accommodate UCD’s pursuit of additional students, then it does regarding the pursuit of “families”, for example.
Bottom line is that I’m not convinced that the “war on cars” (and the evasion of mitigation costs) is going to work in a place like Davis. It might work better to some degree in a place like San Francisco, depending on how wealthy the new residents are (and how much the city chooses to “punish” those who own their own cars, vs. those who depend on vehicles owned by others to obtain the services they need – while pretending that their “blank” don’t stink because they think that riding a bicycle offsets all of their impacts).
Here’s a link to Shoup’s updated 2011 working paper:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PrefaceHighCostFreeParking.pdf
I frequently park on streets in the retail areas of Walnut Creek and Berkeley where Parkmobile meters remind me that for less than the cost of a cup of coffee, these days, I can park for an hour or two. One might argue it’s not priced high enough, but in any case it really isn’t a big deal. All I can say is some people just don’t get out much.
Agreed. Same deal in Midtown Sac.
I was on the Downtown Davis Business Association Parking Committee for a couple of years as liaison to Old East Davis and the Capitol Corridor commuters . Everytime DG brings this issue up, I bring this up. The biggest issue with parking downtown, then and now, is employees at numerous stores free parking in slots meant for customers, and doing the ‘two hour shuffle’. Many stores don’t buy ‘X’ permits for their employees, but even so many employees don’t use them because they don’t want to walk a few blocks. The paid parking would discourage employees from doing the ‘two hour shuffle’ because they would also have to pay for the parking every two hours. Leaving the shuffle issue out of the article is irresponsible.
“Six years later, the core issue has not changed”
Six years??? I was on the DDBA Parking committee TWENTY PLUS years ago, and nothing has changed!!! (a few things have changed – like paid E Street, and gutting parking for patio space, and state daylighting laws that opened up spaces for DoorDash to park in illegally – but basically, same core problems)
“When parking is unbundled from housing, residents can choose whether to pay for a space or not.”
Ok, NO! This gets back to my repeating criticism of ‘squeeze the auto, save the planet’ American dumb enviro thinking. You need to have a well-planned city and awesome public transportation. And we don’t. We’re not even close, not within a $10 billion dollar stone’s throwing range we aren’t. You can’t just suppress parking by charging for it and not give people alternatives. I’m not talking about downtown parking meters, I’m talking about the concept of ‘unbundling’ parking which is a much larger issue of you pay rent and then pay for parking on top of it.
“When revenue from parking is returned to neighborhoods, resistance declines because people see tangible benefits.”
In what way is revenue from parking ‘returned’ to neighborhoods? I don’t believe there was ever a scenario in which it was shown that parking made money after taking out the cost of enforcement and maintenance.
“Davis . . . align policy with its stated values.”
Comedy. Pure comedy.
“When the science aligns with comfort, it is embraced; when it challenges deeply held assumptions or threatens short-term political backlash, it is quietly set aside. Parking policy sits alongside fluoridation and green waste as another example of a community struggling to translate knowledge into action.”
You aren’t seriously going to bring up the F word again are you? What, do you hate Davis? And science is a process, not a fixed answer, and scien-TISTs have political views, as we have learned, and learned, and learned.
“ Leaving the shuffle issue out of the article is irresponsible.”
A fair criticism.
Your point is well taken, because Shoup treats “cruising” (his term) for parking as a central problem.
He documents that underpriced curb parking leads drivers to circle blocks searching for a scarce “free” space, a process that creates congestion, wastes fuel, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. This “shuffle” does not protect residents or businesses from costs; it shifts those costs onto neighborhoods in the form of traffic, pollution, and reduced parking turnover.
Shoup’s conclusion is that the problem is not insufficient parking supply but mispriced parking, and that proper pricing is the only reliable way to eliminate cruising without overbuilding parking that sits empty most of the year.
“A fair criticism.”
Well, that disarmed me. I won’t be an arse for the rest of the day.
I personally never participated in the “parking shuffle” – despite growing up in a city that had far more parking challenges than Davis has.
Instead, I parked in a neighborhood several blocks away, as needed. I was an “expert” at that, and wasn’t too lazy to walk several blocks.
Anything to avoid an hour-long public transit commute in a city no more than 7 miles across in ANY direction (which would also cost me “extra” money – in addition to the cost of the vehicle I already owned). And frankly, a system for which I already had some existing resentment/experience in regard to a purposeful lack of control regarding public safety within their OWN SYSTEM.
See Weird Al’s “Another One Rides the Bus”, for those outside of the Davis bubble.
Alan: “Six years??? I was on the DDBA Parking committee TWENTY PLUS years ago, and nothing has changed!!!”
What has changed is that increased supply is off the table, so the compromise of increased supply combined with paid parking fell apart.
Also, the nature of the downtown businesses has shifted from predominately walk-in retail to predominately food service.
You probably know much better than I, but my understanding is that food businesses have different parking needs.
I also sense that the perceived urgency of the situation has diminished. Changes wrought by Covid, retirement of some key business leaders, and continued hollowing out of the downtown retail are all possible factors.
Previous discussions were contentious, and I don’t see much change in the basic positions. There are at least a couple of dozen articles from 2019 alone on this issue. Personally, I don’t think this something that the council needs to grapple with in 2026.
DS, I was not meaning nothing has changed in the downtown – yes more restaurant means more packing on Friday/Saturday and around mealtimes; also G Street blocked, more patios, daylighting corners — all decreasing spaces. I was only referring to nothing has changed regarding the same arguments are being made, the same reasons meters aren’t being installed, the same circling, the same issues with the employee shuffle. The same unwillingness of people to walk two blocks. By increased supply being off the table, do you mean a new parking garage is off the table? My issue with that is the current ones don’t fill up because many people don’t seem willing to use them; so until they do . . .
I hate that existing f*ng garage, except for the time that I worked for the USDA (and parked all day there). Commuting about 2 miles from my home, instead of taking a f*ng bicycle in the rain, heat, and “appropriately” dressed for work.
Though as noted elsewhere on here, I’d gladly walk many blocks from my parked vehicle to my destination (not 2 miles, though). As long as I don’t have to move it every 2 hours.
I recall that it was Herb Caen who once said that if you find a parking spot in San Francisco – take it, and THEN figure out what you might need to do nearby.
“By increased supply being off the table, do you mean a new parking garage is off the table?”
Yes. Without getting into the merits, or not, of another parking garage, my understanding is that it was key to the retail committee members accepting paid parking.
“Ah, but I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”
Bob Dylan
Wow, 62 comments and counting, you should use my picture more often. Of course my hair is much longer now and my body is leaner (thanks to miracle GLP-1 drugs).
Instead of file footage though you should get some new shots. I’d be happy to model for you in the free parking t-shirt Bob Milbrodt gave me back in the day.
Defeating the expansion of parking meters was a small but delightful victory in my lifelong hero’s journey of political activism that began with opposing the Vietnam War and morphed into environmentalism that helped save the redwoods and fought both offshore oil drilling and Diablo Canyon (You can’t win em all).
You guys can fantasize about beating the parking meter dead horse into a Phoenix all you want in the new year. Reading it reminds me so fondly of those days of yesteryear when the locals beat the parking meter industry in our little city.
Happy New Year to you David.
Ron G. we don’t agree on many issues but I’m with you on this one.
Of the 62 comments you mention, go back to the very first one:
“I thought Davis was done with this issue, why are you now regurgitating it?”
The Vanguard has turned to Parking issues to deflect from their constant cheerleading for the Whitcombe Village Farms Development. You can’t hide David, we can all see you there.
In New York City, congestion pricing, which is closely related to parking fees, has led to indisputable benefits in reduced traffic, improved environmental conditions, improved safety and higher business activity. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/nyc-congestion-pricing-1-year-anniversary-court-hearing/808834/
This is my favorite video on youtube on this topic. Incredibly informative, but the guy is also extremely entertaining and it fun to watch… which is amazing for a topic like “parking”
Highly reccomend:
https://youtu.be/OUNXFHpUhu8?si=_C–NsrctRVMlB3P