From JVH over at PT's Parking Blog
A few weeks ago, The New
York Times printed an article by Tyler Cowen, economist at George Mason
University, “Free Parking Comes at a
Price.” It caused quite a stir in the elite media. Since no one reads
books, but everyone reads the New York Times and blogs, five years after
Shoup’s book was published, his model suddenly went viral and literally
hundreds of bloggers commented, pro and con. One of the most famous “cons” was
from Randal O’Toole, from the libertarian Cato
Institute. He commented on Cowen’s article, in Free
Markets for Free Parking, taking umbrage with much of Shoup’s parking
model.
Shoup tells me that he
normally doesn’t comment on blogs but since the Cato Institute and O’Toole are
so well known and respected, he decided to do so in this case. I thought this
entire controversy so important that I posted Shoup’s entire response to
O’Toole here.
I suggest you first read Cowen’s article,
linked above, then O’Toole’s, and then Shoup’s response. It clarifies much of
the confusion and misconception I have seen in the blogosphere about the Shoup parking
model. Die hard Shoupistas already know all this, but for the rest of you, it
will save you the trouble of reading the book.
Dear Randal,
I would like to comment on
your August 16 post on the Cato@Liberty blog about “Free
Markets for Free Parking.”
You were responding to Tyler Cowen’s article
in the New York Times, “Free Parking Comes at a Price,” in which Tyler
explained some of the ideas in my book, The High Cost of Free Parking.
In commenting on Tyler’s
article, you made several mistakes in describing my ideas and proposals. I will
explain these mistakes, and if you agree with the explanations I hope you will
post corrections on Cato@Liberty.
Before I examine your misunderstanding of what
I have written, I will first summarize the three basic parking reforms I
recommend in The High Cost of Free Parking:
(1) remove off-street
parking requirements,
(2) charge market prices
for on-street parking to achieve about an 85-percent occupancy rate for curb
spaces, and
(3) return the resulting
revenue to pay for public improvements in the metered neighborhoods.
I will quote ten extracts from your post, and
comment on each of them.
1.
“Shoup’s work is biased by his residency in Los Angeles, the nation’s densest
urban area. One way L.A. copes with that density is by requiring builders of
offices, shopping malls, and multi-family residences to provide parking. Shoup
assumes that every municipality in the country has such parking requirements,
even though many do not.”
Even Houston, which does
not have zoning, has minimum parking requirements, and they resemble the
parking requirements in almost every other city in the United States. Houston
requires 1.25 parking spaces for each efficiency apartment in an apartment
house, for example, and 1.333 parking spaces for each one-bedroom apartment.
Here is the link to the minimum parking requirements in Houston’s municipal
code:http://tiny.cc/iaj35
Does the Antiplanner,
(O’Toole’s blog) who is “dedicated to the sunset of government planning,”
really believe that government planners know exactly how many parking spaces to
require for every economic activity at every site in every city, no matter how
much the required parking spaces may cost and no matter how little drivers may
be willing to pay to use them? Does the Antiplanner really support Houston’s
minimum parking requirement of 1.333 spaces for each one-bedroom apartment
because he believes that Houston’s government planners can accurately predict
the “need” for parking at every apartment to one-thousandth of a parking space?
Since you say that many cities do not have minimum parking requirements, can
you provide a list of some of these cities?
2.
“Shoup assumes that . . . without such requirements there would be less free
parking. This last assumption is extremely unlikely, as entrepreneurs
everywhere know that (outside of New York City) 90 percent of all urban travel
is by car, and businesses that don’t offer parking are going to lose customers
to ones that do.”
Removing a minimum parking
requirement means that a city will never force developers to supply more
parking spaces than are profitable, but developers would be free to provide as
many parking spaces as they like. If developers did always voluntarily supply
at least as many parking spaces as cities now require, the minimum parking
requirements would be unnecessary. The only research I have seen found that
developers usually do not provide more parking spaces than cities require (pp.
78–84 of The High Cost of Free Parking). Recent econometric research
also strongly suggests that minimum parking requirements force developers to
provide more parking spaces than they would voluntarily provide in a free
market: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20403/1/MPRA_paper_20403.pdf
3.
“Shoup portrays such free parking as a ‘subsidy’ because not all people drive
and so the ones who don’t drive end up subsidizing the ones who do. But any
business offers a variety of services to its customers and employees, and no
one frets about subsidies just because they don’t take advantage of every
single service. How often do you actually swim in the swimming pools or work
out in the exercise rooms of the hotels you stay at?”
You use swimming pools and
exercise rooms as examples of bundled services at hotels, but cities do not require
hotels to provide swimming pools and exercise rooms. Suppose, however,
cities did require all hotels to provide swimming pools and exercise
rooms, perhaps as a part of a public health campaign. Cities could require all
these swimming pools and exercise rooms to be of at least a minimum size
related to the number of rooms or gross floor area in a hotel. For example,
cities could require every hotel to provide a swimming pool with at least 2,500
gallons of water per guest room. If cities did have minimum pool requirements,
I expect that almost all hotels would bundle the use of the pools into the room
rents. Would you then say that all these swimming pools are the result of free
choices made in a free market? Would you say the market had demonstrated that
hotel guests like to swim? Would you say the minimum pool requirements do not
subsidize swimmers at the expense of nonswimmers? But let’s get back to
parking; even swimming pools have parking requirements, and here is the minimum
parking requirement for swimming pools in one city: 1 parking space for every
2,500 gallons of water in a swimming pool (Table 3-4 in The High Cost of
Free Parking).
Every person plays many
different roles in life—tenant, homeowner, worker, consumer, investor, and
motorist. With bundled parking, we pay for parking in all these roles except,
usually, as motorists. Because we pay for parking indirectly, its cost does not
deter us from driving. Because off-street parking requirements force up the supply of parking spaces, they
“externalize” the cost of parking by shifting it to everyone but the parker.
Only if we pay for parking directly does its cost affect our decisions whether
to drive or not. If cities require an ample supply of parking spaces for every
building, this saves everyone the trouble of thinking about parking—or its
cost. Parking appears free because its cost is widely dispersed in slightly
higher prices for everything else. Because we buy and use cars without thinking
about the cost of parking, we congest traffic, waste fuel, and pollute the air
more than we would if we each paid for our own parking. Everyone parks free at
everyone else’s expense.
The issue is not simply
whether parking is subsidized. Even without minimum parking requirements some
firms would choose to offer free parking, just as some hotels offer swimming
pools and some coffee shops offer wi-fi. The real issue is whether the
government should mandate the parking supply. If a city like Houston
will not allow any developer to build a one-bedroom apartment without also
providing at least 1.333 parking spaces, is it any surprise that most landlords
bundle the cost of parking into higher rents for housing? As a result, we have
free parking and expensive housing. Cars more affordable but housing is less
affordable. When the US Census Bureau surveyed owners and managers of
multifamily rental housing to learn which governmental regulations made their
operations most difficult, parking requirements were cited more frequently than
any other regulation except property taxes. (p. 141 in The High Cost of Free
Parking).
Off-street parking
requirements collectivize the cost of parking, because they allow everyone to
park free at everyone else’s expense. American drivers park free at the end of
99 percent of all their automobile trips. If the cost of parking is hidden in
the prices of other goods and services, no one can pay less for parking by
using less of it. Off-street parking requirements thus change the way we build
our cities, the way we travel, and how much energy we consume. All the required
parking spaces spread the city out, and the greater travel distances make
driving almost a necessity. Free parking also reduces the price of driving
wherever we want to go, so the increased travel distances combined with the
reduced price of driving make cars the obvious choice for most trips: 87
percent of all trips in the U.S. are now made in personal motor vehicles. (pp.
621–625 in The High Cost of Free Parking) Off-street parking
requirements produce the free parking that everyone wants, but ubiquitous free
parking helps explain why American motor vehicles, by themselves, consume
one-eighth of the world’s total oil production. We import two-thirds of this
oil and we are paying for it with borrowed money. America’s extravagant
consumption of imported oil to fuel our cars is not sustainable, economically
or environmentally,
and anything that is not sustainable must
eventually stop.
4.
“Shoup also supposes (and Cowen accepts) that universal parking fees would
greatly reduce the amount of driving people do. ‘Minimum parking requirements
act like a fertility drug for cars,’ Cowen quotes Shoup as saying.”
Please cite any occasion on which I have
recommended “universal parking fees.” I am not even sure what you mean by this
term. If you mean all parking everywhere must have a substantial price at all
times, I most certainly do not recommend that. Figure 12-1 in The High Cost
of Free Parking shows what I mean by the right price for parking, and the
right price will often be zero. For example, if half of all the parking spaces
at a suburban shopping mall are empty even when parking is free, it would not
make sense to charge for parking. On the other hand, if all of the curb parking
spaces in a congested business district are occupied and drivers are circling
every block in search of a vacant curb space, the price of curb parking is too
low. Here is the link to a video that shows how to set the right prices for
curb parking: http://sfpark.org/
5.
“Shoup claims that a single parking space costs, on average, 17 percent more
than the cost of an average car, and as a result, the cost of parking greatly
exceeds the value of all automobiles in the country . This is ridiculous. . . .
Even structured parking typically costs only about $10,000 a space.”
Table 7-3 in The High
Cost of Free Parking shows that parking spaces built on the UCLA campus
have cost, on average, 117 percent of the price of a new car in the years that
the parking spaces were built, but I did not rely on this figure to calculate
that the cost of parking exceeds the value of all automobiles in the country. I
relied on Census data to estimate that the cost of all parking spaces exceeds
the value of all the automobiles in the country. The Department of Commerce
estimated that the average value per vehicle was $5,507 in 1997. This average
value may seem low, but the average age of all vehicles in 1995 was 8.3 years,
and 62 percent of all vehicles were more than five years old. The depreciation
of the older vehicles explains the low average value of $5,507 per vehicle.
(Table 7-2 in The High Cost of Free Parking) There are more parking
spaces than vehicles because drivers must be able to park wherever they go, and
many parking spaces are vacant much of the time.
Cities typically require
enough parking spaces to satisfy the peak demand for parking at every
land use—at home, work, school, restaurants, shopping centers, movie theaters,
and hundreds of other places—so that drivers can have convenient access to all
addresses at all times. To see the result, think of what happens when almost
all vehicles are parked at home in the middle of the night: almost all the
spaces necessary to meet the peak demand for free parking at all other land
uses are empty.
Cities require a specific
number of parking spaces for every land use, but no city collects data on its
total parking supply. No one knows the total number of parking spaces in the
US, but the eminent land-use planner Victor Gruen estimated that every car has
at least one parking space at home and three or four waiting elsewhere to serve
the same car. More recently, Davis et al. (2010) used detailed aerial
photographs to estimate the number of parking spaces in surface parking lots in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Parking lots were
identified as paved surfaces with stripes painted on the surface or where more
than three cars were parked in an organized fashion. Although the estimates did
not include any on-street parking spaces, or any parking spaces in structures
(other than the top floor if the structure has an open roof), or any
residential parking spaces that are not in parking lots, the total area
occupied by parking lots in the four states would cover about half the state of
Rhode Island. In two cities in Indiana for which there were detailed
observations, parking lots covered three times more land than parks. Using this
limited category of parking spaces (only the spaces in off-street surface parking
lots), Davis et al. estimated that the parking supply ranged between 2.5 spaces
per car in Indiana to 3 spaces per car in Michigan. Presumably, most cars also
have one parking space at home, and many more parking spaces are on the streets
and in structures.
To be extremely
conservative, suppose there is one parking space at home for every car and only
two additional parking spaces elsewhere (at work, school, supermarkets, and so
on), for a total of three parking spaces per car. Let us also take your back-of-the-envelope
estimate of $2,200 for the land and construction cost of a surface parking
space, an extremely low value. The cost of the parking spaces available per car
would be $6,600 (3 spaces per car x $2,200 per space). In this case, the per-car
cost of parking exceeds the average value of a car ($5,507). If so, the total
cost of the parking supply exceeds the total value of all cars. And this
estimate does not include the cost of any parking spaces on the streets or in
structures.
Please cite the source of
your statement that “Even structured parking typically costs only about $10,000
a space.” The national average construction cost for an above-ground parking
structure in 2010, according to Carl Walker Associates, is just over $16,000
per space (excluding land value). Underground parking structures are even more
expensive. The most recent underground parking structure built at UCLA, for
example, cost $31,500 per space (Table 6-1 in The High Cost of Free Parking).
Yale is about to spend $20 million to build a 200-space underground parking
structure for its new School of Management, which is a cost of $100,000 per
space. Your rough estimates of $2,200 per space for surface parking and $10,000
per space for structured parking are probably far too low for parking lots and
structures in many cities.
If the total cost of all parking spaces in
the US exceeds the total value of all the cars parked in them, and if drivers
park free for 99 percent of all their trips, the total subsidy for parking (the
total cost of parking not paid for by drivers in their role as parkers) is
huge. Using data on the capital and operating costs of parking lots and parking
structures, I estimated that the subsidy for off-street parking in 2002 was
between $127 billion and $374 billion, or between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent
of the gross domestic product. In comparison, in 2002 the federal government
spent $231 billion for Medicare and $349 billion for national defense. (Chapter
7 in The High Cost of Free Parking)
In addition, there is the
subsidy for all the on-street parking spaces. Consider a 36-foot wide
residential street with two 10-foot-wide travel lanes and two 8-foot-wide
parking lanes: curb parking takes up 44 percent of the roadspace. Clearly, curb
parking spaces account for a significant share of the total cost of roads, and
an accurate estimate of the total subsidy for parking would take curb parking
into account. The US Department of Commerce estimates that the value of roads
is 36 percent of the value of all state and local public infrastructure (which
also includes schools, sewers, water supply, residential buildings, equipment,
hospitals, and parks).
Because curb parking
occupies a substantial share of road space, it must be a substantial share of
all state and local public infrastructure. Drivers do not pay gasoline taxes
while their cars are parked, except perhaps on the gasoline lost through
evaporative emissions, which pollute the air. Since drivers do pay gasoline
taxes while they are driving, curb spaces are subsidized much more than the
travel lanes are. Free curb parking may be the most costly subsidy that
American cities provide for most of their citizens. (p. 206 in The High Cost
of Free
Parking)
6.
“Strangely, one of the examples Cowen uses in his article is Manhattan, where
(he claims) ‘streets arefull of cars cruising around, looking for cheaper
on-street parking, rather than pulling into a lot.’ Give me a break! I defy
Cowen to find any free parking anywhere in Manhattan, where ownership of a
single parking space can cost more than a median home in other parts of the
country.”
I see that you retracted
this no-free-parking-in-Manhattan claim in a later post at this link:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/yes-a-free-parking-space-grows-in-manhattan/
Unfortunately, this retraction includes several new errors of fact:
7.
“Many streets in Manhattan offer free parking, albeit often with the caveat
that you have to move your car from one side of the street to the other every
night.”
New York does not require
owners who park on the street to move their cars every night. It requires
owners to move their cars twice a week so the city can sweep the streets under
them. Most of the curb parking spaces in Manhattan are free, on some of the
most valuable land on earth. As you say, a parking space in Manhattan can cost
more than a house in other parts of the country, so these free curb spaces must
provide an awesome subsidy for cars. And the competition for this awesome
subsidy requires cruising to find a rare vacant space. This cruising for free
parking wastes time and fuel, congests traffic, and pollutes the air.
A study of cruising in one
15-block business district in Los Angeles found that, over the course of a
year, the search for underpriced curb parking created about 950,000 excess
vehicle miles of travel—equivalent to 38 trips around the earth, or four trips
to the moon. And here’s another inconvenient truth about underpriced curb
parking: cruising those 950,000 miles wastes 47,000 gallons of gasoline and
produces 730 tons of carbon dioxide. If all this happens in one small business
district, imagine the cumulative effect of all cruising in throughout the
United States. (Chapter 14 in The High Cost of Free Parking)
8.
“But this doesn’t change my main point, which is that it is one thing for Cowen
to argue that cities should not price parking below market rates where there is
a market for parking. I have no problem with this. But it is quite another
thing to argue, as many urban planners following the Shoup model do, that
private businesses should be required to charge for parking (or be limited in
how much parking they are allowed to provide) in areas where the market rate
for parking is zero.”
Please cite the source of
a Shoup model that would require businesses to charge for parking. Opposing
minimum parking requirements is very different from proposing minimum pricing
requirements. I have supported the policy of “parking cash out” whereby
employers who offer commuters free parking at work also offer commuters the
option to choose the cash value of a parking space if they do not take a free
parking space at work. This policy does not mandate parking charges because
commuters who choose to drive can still park free. Parking cash out gives the
same subsidy to every commuter, regardless of travel mode choice, while free
parking gives a subsidy to drivers and nothing to other commuters.
Case studies of employers
who offer parking cash out in Southern California show that it reduced vehicle
travel to work by 12 percent—equivalent to removing one of every eight cars
from the road during peak commute hours. Parking cash out cost the employers
only $2 a month per employee because they saved almost as much on parking
subsidies as they paid in cash to commuters. Federal and state income tax
revenues increased by $65 a year per employee because many commuters
voluntarily traded their tax-exempt parking subsidies for taxable cash.
Employers said that parking cash out is simple and fair, and that it helps
recruit and retain workers. Parking cash out thus produces benefits for
commuters, employers, taxpayers, cities, and the environment. It accomplishes
all these goals simply by letting commuters choose how to spend their own
money. Can you tell me if the Cato Institute offers free parking for its
employees? If so, does it also offer commuters the option to cash out their
parking subsidies?
9.
“Cowen’s complaint about Manhattan is not about free parking but that the
government is pricing onstreet parking below the market. If that were the
extent of Shoup’s argument, I would have no problem, as I noted in my blog last
week. But Shoup’s goal isn’t market pricing of public parking; it is to create
artificial shortages of private parking. He doesn’t want to simply eliminate
the minimum-parking requirements that are found in many zoning codes; he wants
to replace them with maximum-parking limits so that places like WalMart will
not be allowed to provide their customers with as much parking as they like.”
You have misunderstood
what I recommend. Here are four quotes about parking requirements in The
High Cost of Free Parking: “Most markets depend on prices to allocate
resources—so much so that it’s hard to imagine they could operate in any other
way. Nevertheless, cities have tried to manage parking almost entirely without
prices. . . cities have without a second thought imposed planning requirements
to ensure affordable parking. Rather than charge fair market prices for
on-street parking, cities require ample off-street parking for every land use.”
(p. 8) “Planners cannot even agree on whether to require or restrict off-street
parking. Consider the diametrically opposed approaches in the Los Angeles and
San Francisco CBDs: Los Angeles requires parking, while San Francisco restricts
it. For a concert hall, Los Angeles requires, as a minimum, 50 times more
parking spaces than San Francisco allows as the maximum. . . If some physicians
prescribed bloodletting and others prescribed blood transfusion to treat the
same disease, everybody would demand to know what is going on. But when city
planners do essentially the same thing, nobody questions the contradiction.”
(p. 121) “Despite their ambivalence on whether to require or restrict parking,
planners always regulate it. This behavior recalls a Soviet maxim: “What is not
required must be prohibited.” (p. 121) “Although market prices can allocate
parking spaces fairly and efficiently, cities now require off-street parking
everywhere—imposing enormous costs on the economy and the environment. Cities
can and should regulate off-street parking to improve its quality, but
they should deregulate its quantity and instead charge market prices for
curb parking. If cities deregulate off-street parking and charge the right
price for curb parking, market forces will improve transportation, land use,
the environment, and urban life. You will not pay for my parking, and I will
not pay for yours. Instead of planning without prices, we can let prices do the
planning.” (p. 499) I did not mention WalMart anywhere in The High Cost of
Free Parking.
10.
“The empirical question is: do shopping malls, office parks, and companies like
WalMart provide parking for their customers and employees because of zoning
mandates, as Shoup claims? Or would they and do they provide parking just
because it is good for their businesses? Texas counties are not allowed to
zone, yet shopping centers and office parks in unincorporated Texas still
provide plenty of parking. Much to planners’ annoyance, many developers
elsewhere routinely provide more parking than zoning codes demand. This
suggests that free parking is a free-market choice, and Cowen, who generally
supports free markets, should have no objection to it.”
Your “empirical question”
attacks a straw planner. I have never said that developers provide parking only
because of zoning. I have said that zoning often forces developers to
provide more parking than they would voluntarily choose to provide in a free
market, where they take into account both the cost of providing the parking
spaces and the revenue the spaces will generate. So please cite the evidence
for your statement that many developers routinely provide more parking than
zoning codes demand. Why do you say that planners are annoyed when developers
voluntarily provide more parking than zoning codes demand? Most off-street
parking requirements are a minimum with no maximum. Minimum parking
requirements imply that planners care only about having enough parking spaces,
and that there can never be too many. Furthermore, the planning approvals for
specific projects often require developers to
provide more parking spaces than the zoning
code requires. Few planners are annoyed when developers provide more parking
than the code requires; they are annoyed when developers try to provide less
parking than the code requires.
All the evidence I have
seen suggests that developers often request planning variances to provide fewer
parking spaces than the zoning codes require, because these requirements can
seriously overestimate the peak demand for free parking. Developers must
commission expensive transportation studies to justify a planning variance.
Consider the results in a study
commissioned by Home Depot to measure the parking occupancy at its
stores in the Southwest United States. The Parsons Transportation Group
observed the parking occupancy at hourly
intervals at 17 Home Depot stores on a Saturday, the busiest day of the week,
and found “no correlation between the square footage of a store and its
resultant peak parking demand.” Parsons used the sales data at each store to
predict its peak parking occupancy on the 5th-busiest day of the year, which
was selected as the “design day” for the parking supply. As Parsons explained,
“Choosing the 5th-busiest day as the design day would mean that some customers
may not be able to find a parking space immediately during the peak hour of the
busiest four or five days of the year; however, they should have no problem
finding a parking space in the lot at any other time.”
Parsons then compared
these estimates of peak parking occupancy with the number of spaces that cities
typically require at the rate of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
The average municipal parking requirement based on floor area was more than double
the estimated peak parking occupancy on the 5th-busiest day at a Home Depot
store. That is, the study commissioned
by Home Depot found that cities required twice the number of parking spaces
needed to meet the peak demand for free parking at Home Depot stores at the
busiest time of the year. (pp. 35–37 in The High Cost of Free Parking)
City planners have no training that would enable them to estimate the demand
for parking, and no financial stake in the success of a development. They know
much less than developers do about how many parking spaces to provide for each
project.
Planners may, at best,
know a little about the peak demand for free parking at a few land uses, but
they know nothing about the marginal cost of parking spaces at any site, or
about how to estimate the demand for parking as a function of its price.
Markets will quickly reveal the demand for parking if cities cease requiring
off-street spaces. Developers, landlords, and residents will all be able to
make their own independent decisions about the right number of parking spaces.
Market-priced parking will allow cities to evolve naturally in response to
developers’ costs and citizens’ preferences, while minimum parking requirements
force evolution toward car dependency and sprawl. In planning for an uncertain
future, flexible
prices are far better than rigid
requirements. Could things be any worse if there were no planning for parking
at all?
The vision behind most
planning for parking is a drive-in utopia, and cities legislate this vision
into reality for every new building, regardless of the cost. Off-street parking
requirements that satisfy the peak demand for free parking are, in reality, free
parking requirements. Planners may believe in the immaculate conception of
parking demand, and economists may believe that market choices reveal consumer
preferences for travel by car. But the demand for parking was not immaculately
conceived, and it does not result from consumer preferences revealed in a free
market. Free parking is not always a free-market choice. Instead, governments
and the market coupled long ago to produce today’s swollen demand for cars and
parking.
After he has studied the
evidence and reconsidered the issues, I hope the Antiplanner at the Cato
Institute may decide to condemn rather than condone a complex web of wasteful
and harmful minimum parking requirements that severely restrict the use of
private property.
Well, that’s about it for pointing out
mistakes in your blog post. Because you have said that you did not read The
High Cost of Free Parking, I can understand why you have some isconceptions of what is in it. If you had
read the book, you would probably have found much with which you agree. I do
not expect that you will want to read a 733-page book on parking, however, so
here are the links to a few sites that will give you a quick view of what’s in
the book.
A video of how San Francisco sets market prices for curb
parking:
http://sfpark.org/
A video of a presentation on parking at Yale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8vkbfz8PU8
A proposal for pricing curb parking:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/GreatStreet.pdf
An op-ed piece in the New York Times:
The first chapter of The High Cost of Free
Parking:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/Chapter1.pdf
Book reviews of The High Cost of Free
Parking:
http://its.ucla.edu/shoup/BookReviews.pdf
Roughly right or precisely wrong in ACCESS:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/RoughlyRightOrPreciselyWrong.pdf
People, parking, and cities in ACCESS:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/People,Parking,Cities.pdf
Turning small change into big changes in
ACCESS:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/SmallChange.pdf
Cruising for parking in ACCESS:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf
Playing with parking fees and matchbox cars:
www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/21/donald-shoup-plays-with-parking-fees-and-matchbox-cars/
Parking cash out in ACCESS:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CongressOkaysCashOut.pdf
A video about parking cash out:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/03/24/views-from-the-summit-parking-rock-star-donald-shoup-blasts-l-a-sparking-policies/
My website:
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/
I did not spend all this time simply to send
you a personal message about your blog post. If you take responsibility for the
accuracy of the facts you have confidently stated on Cato@Liberty, and if the
Cato Institute stands behind the accuracy of what its staff members post on its
blog, I hope you will use the information in this message to correct all the
errors in your original post. If your post is so careless with the facts and so
filled with errors, and it is not corrected or retracted, what should one
assume about all the other posts on Cato@Liberty?
Donald Shoup
Department of Urban Planning
University of California, Los Angeles
As someone who is a student of Shoup's and has read a good chunk of Shoup's book (so there, Randal), I'd like to point out the irony in this line:
I do not expect that you will want to read a 733-page book on parking, however, so here are the links to a few sites that will give you a quick view of what’s in the book.
And then he gives 11 links.
Gotta love it.
Posted by: Sirinya | 01 September 2010 at 12:36 PM