Progress Illinois

Chicagoans saw the cost of downtown parking meters go up in January and we expect this hike will lead many to explore other modes of transportation.  Last summer’s gas price spike caused the same thing to happen: Americans drove about 100 billion fewer miles from November 2007 to November 2008, according to AAA. Not coincidentally, the number of traffic fatalities sharply fell by about 10 percent in 2008.

The Active Transportation Alliance’s vision for the Chicago metropolitan region is one with 50 percent fewer crashes and where half of all trips are made by walking, biking, and mass transit.  We are a powerhouse when it comes to enabling communities to experiment with such alternatives. But if we want to see total success, we must also build support around policies that reduce driving accessibility.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as free parking.

Indeed, free or low-cost parking encourages more driving, which results in congestion and more crashes, according to Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at University of California-Los Angeles and the author of The High Cost of Free Parking.

In fact, the full price of parking -- from the spatial value to the resulting cost of crashes --  is unfairly absorbed by those who can’t afford to drive or choose not to do so. Shoup suggests that charging fair-market prices for parking would reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled, and would increase carpool trips, off-peak travel, and bicycling, walking, and mass transit use.

Most planners and politicians follow one golden rule: four car parking spaces per 1,000 feet.  As a result, there is abundant under-priced parking. In Chicagoland, that translates into 78 percent of Chicagoland commuters driving to work, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.  Ninety-five percent of them then park for free.

That is because -- even though each space costs $10,000-$30,000 to build -- parking is enormously subsidized. Rather than being passed on directly to the driver, those costs are bundled into higher rents for businesses, which in turn raise prices on goods.

If drivers were charged a price closer to the parking spots’ market price, they would drive less and explore other transportation options -- as many did when faced with astronomic gas prices last summer.

Furthermore, the revenue generated from higher parking meter rates should be directed toward improving public services and amenities. Instead of going into the government’s general operating funds or into a private company’s coffers, these dollars would go towards expanding transportation options: for instance, repairing sidewalks, improving transit service, and installing more bike lanes. There is no indication that the $1.2 billion received by the Chicago government in the recent parking meter deal will be directed toward expanding transportation options for all city residents.

Calls to City Hall and LAZ Parking, who is operating the parking lease, were not returned.  We would be eager to have a conversation with their representatives to discuss the new parking arrangement.

One argument that routinely pops up against the kind of market-based parking rates we propose is that they are unfair to underserved communities and people on fixed income. This is an important point, but it cannot be addressed on its own. In a subsequent article, we’ll discuss the barriers to equitable, affordable transportation and how we can all work to overcome them.

In the meantime, traffic is getting worse and the number of crashes are directly linked to vehicle miles traveled. Our air is getting dirtier; oil is running out; and cities need money. This is the time to evaluate the remaining non-leased parking with regard to sustainable, revenue-generating arrangements that reduce crashes and encourage bicycling, walking, and mass transit.

As Shoup puts it, the revenue is under our cars.

Arline Welty is the director of development at the Active Transportation Alliance, whose mission is to make bicycling, walking and public transit so safe, convenient and fun that we will achieve a significant shift from environmentally harmful, sedentary travel to clean, active travel.  A version of this column originally appeared on the organization's blog.