California Bill Takes Aim at Basic Right: Free Parking

SAN FRANCISCO (Feb. 24) -- For many drivers in California, the right to free parking is as fundamental as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Politicians who challenge the California car culture do so at their own peril.

But that hasn't stopped state Sen. Alan Lowenthal from pushing legislation to reduce the amount of free parking available in California cities. Not that it's free everywhere -- downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco, for example, charge high rates like most large cities do. And most cities have parking meters in congested areas.

Still, the Democrat from Long Beach hopes to create incentives for cities to reduce car use and protect the environment by making motorists pay a greater share of the true cost of parking. The measure was approved by the senate last month and awaits action in the state assembly.

"This bill encourages cities to take a second look at their parking policies and incorporate free-market principles where it makes sense," says Lowenthal, who is chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. "I see this bill as a way to stimulate economic development."

But that is not how the bill has been received by many motorists. Its progress in the legislature has sparked a Web-based outcry from drivers who contend that the plan is aimed at helping parking operators make more money and would further damage the state's fragile economy.

"Great Idea," Leila wrote sarcastically on the Mother Nature Network Web site . "Let's completely destroy California's economy by making it harder for people to visit merchants. Then we can all live in tents and compost all of our trash!"

Tom, commenting on a Los Angeles Times Web site, took a similar view: "Once again the power brokers are in the hands of business that make money off parking. Sheesh, whats next? A fee for air. Why not? Business gets to charge what ever they want, but the consumer has no chance at all."

The bill is supported by environmental groups that see the proposal as a way to cut carbon emissions and by business groups that want to reduce the number of parking spaces required with new construction.

Lowenthal contends that much of the opposition to his bill is based on "misinformation" and that the measure would do far less than critics contend.

"Contrary to what folks were led to believe, this bill does not ban free parking or take away free parking at Costco and Target," the senator said in a written statement to AOL News. "Nor does it force local government to change their policies."

Lowenthal has already received attention for his views on the automobile. He was among several political figures interviewed in the 2006 documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" after he authored a successful bill in 2000 to fund the development of zero-emission vehicles.

As it now stands, his parking bill would create a point-based incentive system for cities to reduce the amount of free and under-priced parking available.

A city could earn points in a variety of ways including:

• Changing zoning laws to reduce the number of parking places required with new development.
• Requiring separate pricing of parking spaces in commercial and condo developments.
• Moving to eliminate employer-paid parking and replace it with transit subsidies.
• Raising parking meter prices to reflect market rates.
• Installing meters in areas with parking shortages.

A city that earned enough points would have an edge in getting state funding and might eventually be able to sell anti-pollution credits under a proposed cap-and-trade program.

Much of the legislation is based on the research of UCLA urban planning professor Donald Shoup, who analyzed parking economics in a book called "The High Cost of Free Parking."

He concluded that parking prices have a significant effect on how people choose to travel and that free and low-cost parking substantially increase car use.

He estimates that taxpayers subsidize the cost of parking to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, which encourages people to drive – and to drive alone -- instead of taking public transportation.

In an analysis of parking meter pricing, he recommended that rates be raised to achieve an 85 percent occupancy rate, which would yield one or two empty spaces per block. Under that regime, drivers could find a parking place quickly but would not stay as long. He also advocates spending the increased parking revenue on added public services in the community.

Lowenthal and supporters of the legislation cast it as a free-market approach that will reduce traffic congestion and help the environment by discouraging car use.

"This bill seeks to reduce business regulation by letting businesses, rather than government, decide how much parking they want to provide," the senator said. "Why make businesses pay up to $40,000 per space for parking none of us need?"

In a letter supporting the measure, the Natural Resources Defense Council noted that nearly 38 percent of the state's global warming pollution comes from vehicles.

"Free and underpriced curb parking encourages unnecessary driving and in many cases creates a shortage of parking spaces," wrote Justin Horner, the group's transportation policy analyst. "Drivers then cruise for parking, creating congestion, wasting fuel and polluting the air."

And not everyone who vented online about traffic congestion was critical of the bill. Some praised it as a good idea.

"Let's think about it this way: would we all be better off if most food was free?" wrote Kristen Huff, who blogs under the name Herbie at Meek Adjustments. "No, we'd waste a lot of time waiting in lines, and once we got the food, we'd eat too much. That's a pretty good analogy for what we do with parking now."