Metro Plans to Create Parking Shortages
For some reason people’s basic knowledge of price mechanisms seems to go out the window when the subject turns to parking. A ridiculously large number of people are expected to come to town for Barack Obama’s inauguration. Since one way of getting to town is on Metro, they’re anticipating record ridership figures. And many of Metro’s station are park-and-ride facilities in the suburbs — you drive there, drop your car, and drive into town. Since they’re anticipating record ridership, they’re also anticipating record demand for parking. Naturally, they’ve decided this would be a good moment for a temporary spate of free parking.
This is insane. The marginal costs associated with mass transit are close to zero. Consequently, fares and fees should really be kept as low as possible, with as much of operating costs as possible covered by direct subsidy. The exception to this guideline, however, is when you’re genuinely up against a supply constraint. When you can’t fit any more people on to your trains and there’s no good way to expand service, you need to use pricing to keep demand in check, even in an Yglesian world where transit funding was sky-high. Similarly, since we aren’t (and shouldn’t) going to build whole new parking facilities between now and Inauguration Day, the only way to avoid ridiculous parking shortages is to charge more, not less, than usual. What’s more we of course don’t live in that ideal world where public subsidy is generous enough to use fees purely for rationing purposes. Metro needs to cover some of its operating costs through fares and parking fees. And Inauguration Day is a potential bonanza in that regard.
It’s not too late to correct this error, and hopefully WMATA will think harder about this.
40 Responses to “Metro Plans to Create Parking Shortages”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
So true. WMATA doesn’t appear to mind charging commuters to park, people who have no choice but to pay (they have to travel to work), but is giving a break to purely discretionary travelers.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Metro only has about 60,000 parking spots in the whole system. They are expecting upward of 1.5 million riders on Inauguration Day. The parking lots were going to fill up fast regardless of what they charged. All that free parking means is that WMATA is foregoing a few hundred thousands dollars in parking revenue for the day. I’d rather they let people park for free instead of trying to gouge Inauguration-goers, who are going to have a rough enough trip in as it is.
In addition, they are charging weekend/holiday fares throughout the system on January 20. Parking is always free on weekends & holidays. I doubt they thought much beyond that. Plus, it avoids the problems that would arise from tourists not having SmarTrip cards to get out of parking lots…
November 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
They could just be covering their asses to avoid charges of discriminating against poor people. Then again, these people all have cars, and normally parking isn’t free, so I dunno…probably just a misguided attempt to make things easier for people but hasn’t been thought through.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:43 pm
But the problem is that people are really, really dumb and short-sighted. If the Metro doesn’t do this, than a non-negligible number of people will not pay the immediate cost of parking at a Metro stop and rather take their cars into the city and try to somehow find a cheaper or free parking option there.
This is the cost of having a transit system that is not used for occasional trips. In fact, one could argue that providing free off-hour parking (I don’t know what the weekend policy is in DC) would benefit the system by getting occasional user accustomed to the mechanics of using the system.
Information is a big deal - in Philadelphia, where a mere 2 million people showed up for the Phillies parade, regional rail was filled over capacity. At the same time, an alternative rail transit system to many of the same suburbs (the 100+ lines, followed by transferring onto the El) had plenty of spare capacity. The one-time users who lacked knowledge of the system had no idea they had that alternative. (Of course it didn’t help that it didn’t seem to occur to SEPTA to tell them about it.)
November 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
No - there are other things to consider.
For one, they want to keep as many cars from coming downtown as possible during a one-time event. Sure, the ideas for the price mechanism may make sense when trying to influence long-term transportation choices and habits, but the purpose of Jan 20 isn’t to maximize profit or leave enough spaces empty for those on the economic curve want to or can afford to pay more than others - it’s to move as many people as possible via Metro and not by car. So, what would be the advantage of getting toward that goal if you provide a disincentive for some or many people to use the Metro parking lots and instead decide to take their chances and drive downtown and find a free parking space on the streets instead?
Additionally, consider the fact that Metro has system for payment in parking lots that solely involves use of the “Flash Pass” - something commuters and residents have - something out-of-town and one-time visitors do not have. Much easier, less costly, and less room for absolute chaos with so many one-time visitors if the rules are just totally suspended rather than expecting one-time and first time users to jump through the hoops of obtaining and using a Flash Pass.
It’s good in the long-range scheme of things to take a view that imposes a system designed to maximize utility over the long-term, but you also have to be flexible enough to be able to suspend the system to achieve short-term goals. Sometimes people in Washington forget that we aren’t the only ones here and that national events such as the Innauguration bring in a whole lot of other people who don’t necessarily know “the rules”.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Well the parking is going to be exhausted very quickly one way or another, fees or no fees. Couldn’t this just be a way of avoiding traffic congestion at metro stations by keeping gates open, turning off parking card machines, and then allowing people to drive out of the stations quickly when they get back, without stopping at booths to pay? Otherwise you are going to have thousands of people crushing in the station after the inauguration, and queuing up for hours to pay their parking price.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
The whole thing sounds like a nightmare. I have friends who live within walking distance of some of the Arlington orange line stops, so I was originally planning on just heading to DC for the inauguration and being part of the celebration, but the whole thing is starting to sound like its going to be more trouble than its worth.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Comment #2 clinches it. It’s a holiday as far as the overall WMATA is concerned, and free parking is a holiday policy. i can understand not wanting to treat different parts of the operation differently.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Matthew,
The marginal costs associated with mass transit are close to zero. Consequently, fares and fees should really be kept as low as possible, with as much of operating costs as possible covered by direct subsidy.
Incomprehensible. How does a near-zero marginal cost of a resource imply that the direct cost of using the resource (“fares and fees”) should be “kept as low as possible?” The marginal costs associated with, say, roads and movie theaters are also “close to zero.” One more person in a theater or one more car on a road increases “operating” costs by only a tiny amount. Are you therefore proposing that virtually all of the cost of operating movie theaters and maintaining roads should be covered by direct subsidy rather than user fees?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I think the WMATA is looking at the big picture: how to be as helpful as possible in getting people into town and back out. This seems to be good move. It will encourage people to take the metro and prevent problems when all those people are trying to exit at the same time.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Since WMATA requires SmartTrip cards to park in lots, keeping things free for the day is defintiely a good idea. Can you image the clusterfuck that would ensure if thousands of people found out that they needed a SmartTrip card just to pay for their parking?
November 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Metro parking lots are going to be filled to capacity whether they offer free parking or not. I don’t see how this encourages more people to use Metro. Now, however, Metro is going to have ton of staff at all the parking lots, and get zero money for that. Those costs will be shifted once again to regular commuters.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I hate it when I agree with Mixner.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The problem with “raise parking meters to $5/hour” is that there is a fundamental issue of fairness involved. Or unfairness in this case: the citizen with large amounts of free cash has an advantage - one that I would term unfair - over the person with no money but creativity and some extra time. If you make all parking, even short-term parking such as meters, hideously expensive then you are tilting the playing field even more strongly in favor of the wealthy than it is today.
That’s why something like Chicago’s old meter prices on Wabash Ave (next to Field’s) were to me optimal: 25 cents for 1/2 hour, $1.00 for 1 hour, and an absolute limit of 1 hour per car per space. Of course those and essentially all the rest of the affordable short-term spots in downtown Chicago have been removed, and many parking lots with prices of $10 for the first 30 minutes erected. Not surprisingly those parking lot owners are big contributors to RMD. Again a bit of fundamental unfairness.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Now, however, Metro is going to have ton of staff at all the parking lots, and get zero money for that.
Why is that? If the gates are open and people are just driving in and out, all you need is the security folks, who would presumably be there anyway.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Besides what everyone else has said, you can only pay for parking with a smart card. I can’t imagine the mess when someone from out of town gets to the front and tries to pay with cash, and then has to backout and figure out how to buy a smartcard and load the correct value on it. Encourage people to use metro and try to make metro as pain free as possible. Who knows maybe they will realie it is not that hard and use it in the future.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The main reason for making public transportation free for mass public events (Boston examples: First Night, Fourth of July) is that your goal is to move as many people as quickly as possible. You will also have huge numbers of people who have never used the system before. Look at how much newbs screw things up on just a regular day. Multiply that by the crowds expected. Also, service being free cuts down on complaints and creates crowd goodwill and willingness to squeeze into sardine-packed buses and trains.
It’s crowd control, not revenue they are thinking of.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I hate it when I agree with Mixner.
Same here. Matt’s point about free parking is dead-on, but the rest of it didn’t make a whole lot of sense.
But since I live right near Shady Grove Metro, which is the most easily accessible stop for anyone driving into town on I-270, I’m kind of glad they’re not charging for parking that day. Let them fill up the garage before they start double parking in my neighborhood.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The exception to this guideline, however, is when you’re genuinely up against a supply constraint.
This is backwards — when supply is fixed, that’s the one situation when when price controls can be justifiable.
In the long run, the supply of metro parking spaces isn’t fixed; if metro receives more parking revenue, it can use that money to increase the supply of parking by building garages and/or acquiring more land. Thus charging less than the market price for parking will over time result in a true ‘parking shortage’, i.e. a suboptimal number of parking spaces.
However in this situation, the number of parking spaces available on inauguration day will be the same regardless of the price charged. The effect of charging for parking will be simply to transfer wealth from the metro riders to metro, while leaving the number of people who get to park exctly the same. The effect on the welfare of society as a whole is basically a wash.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Can you image the clusterfuck that would ensure if thousands of people found out that they needed a SmartTrip card just to pay for their parking?
EXACTLY. I visited DC for the first time last year and was staying in Alexandria, fully expecting to use the Metro to get into the District. As it turns out, this only worked on the weekend, because I needed a card to park during the week, and there was conflicting information about whether there was free parking anywhere. This process seemed way too complicated, so I just drove into DC instead and found parking there. It was kind of a pain to find parking in a few places, but it ended up being cheaper when compared to the cost of using the Metro (fares for 2 people + parking + card) and was also a lot less confusing.
Essentially, using the Metro from outside the District is only for regulars and not for one-time users.
We still saved money by getting a motel in Virginia instead of comparable lodging in DC itself.
…and I say all of this as a regular Metro commuter in L.A.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Except that doesn’t take into account what you do with the wealth transferred to WMATA. If WMATA uses that revenue to run more bus service, assuming there are positive externalities with increased bus transit use, society and the bus riders end up ahead.
There’s no deadweight loss for the first transaction because the quantity of parking sold doesn’t change, but for the second transaction there’s a social benefit because the amount of bus ridership goes up.
WMATA should charge at least regular workday rates for parking.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
And to get around the need for smart cards, just have the fare machines at the train stations sell $10 parking cards and have attendants at the exits to collect the cards. You don’t have people handling cash so the possibility for fraud is reduced. (you can still pay the attendant $5 to look the other way, I guess).
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 am
sell $10 parking cards and have attendants at the exits to collect the cards.
The attendants would need to be there weekdays, so two and half attendants to cover 5 AM-ish to 1 AM-ish. At ten dollars an hour thats $200 a day for 250 or so days a year, or $50,000 a year. The smart card machines are cheaper, they don’t need things like health insurance or do things like call in sick or join unions…
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
But the problem is that people are really, really dumb and short-sighted. If the Metro doesn’t do this, than a non-negligible number of people will not pay the immediate cost of parking at a Metro stop and rather take their cars into the city and try to somehow find a cheaper or free parking option there.
Which won’t make any difference as long as the Metro is at full capacity. If the Metro doesn’t charge anything, then a different, but numerically equal non-negligible number of people will take their cars into the city to try and somehow find a more accessible parking option. The only difference will be that people will do that based on how late they got to the parking lot rather than based on how much they are wiling to pay.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
When you have a situation where only 60K commuters can park in the first place there’s a massive issue. Irrespective of the inaugaration Washington has a parking issue - not enough off street parking that’s affordable AND convenient. In general we’re tired of the very undemocratic process of parking.
January 18th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
January 20th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Perhaps they want to focus on safety and not enforcing payment?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:49 am
The marginal costs of transit are close to zero isn’t exactly correct.
1. You have to build the system to be able to serve the throughput for rush periods, which requires a more robust more costly system — of course, you want to maximize utilization afterward…
2. It’s zero up to the point where you have to add more equipment to trainsets, and more trainsets to provide more capacity through additional runs. For the subway, it’s adding subway cars which cost $4 million each to get up to 8 car trains (most trains are 6 cars now), having more trains to be able to run at a 2 minute headway (on the redline, the other lines can only support 26 trains/hour).
3. Or a more robust system, i.e., separating the blue and orange lines would add capacity significantly but at great but necessary cost.
Etc.
Running the subway system as WMATA did over the Inauguration did not mean that the “marginal costs” of increased service were close to zero. It meant significantly increased expenses. That’s ok. But it’s important to really understand the point of marginal costs in terms of the points where the system capacity has to be expanded “marginally” as with increased service during inauguration, or more comprehensively, by addressing capacity chokepoints in a variety of ways.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:45 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Incredible site!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
I want to say - thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra