Abu Dhabi Parking Madness
I’ve never been to Abu Dhabi, but I know that they’re in the midst of building out their brand new and successful metro system. But Gregg Carlstrom points to a totally non-worthwhile emirati initiative, a new plan to make landlords provide parking spaces to their tenants: “The owners of new buildings must offer adequate parking or pay the Government Dh160,000 (US$43,000) for each car space they cannot provide.”
Policy rationales for a regulatory parking mandate might include a belief that the poor should subsidize the consumption of the rich, the belief that increasing the volume of traffic congestion would be useful, the view that the planet suffers from insufficient levels of C02 emissions and other air pollution, or the idea that economic growth and the efficient allocation of resources are undesirable. Otherwise, this is a terrible idea, albeit one that’s extremely common in American cities. It’s too bad, too, because according to the same article Abu Dhabi is doing sensible things with its public parking: “parking charges – at Dh2 to Dh3 per hour, already higher than neighbouring emirates – will continue to increase as more public transport becomes available.”
30 Responses to “Abu Dhabi Parking Madness”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 11th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Or the belief that it is fun to watch Matt’s head explode over parking. It’s the joke that keeps on giving.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Seriously .. you’re keeping tabs on the parking situation in Abu Dhabi?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:02 am
First, Dubai is the city with the metro, not Abu Dhabi.
That said, tenant parking seems different than other forms. I’ve been to the UAE, and there are places you might want to go to which there is no public transportation, and to which it might be challenging to build. The UAE also has internal regulation issues as the emirates all jealously guard their preregatives, making the inter-emirate infrastructure comically bad – busses, for example, are only allowed to pick up passengers in one direction, meaning they go back empty. Given this situation, letting tenants park seems perfectly reasonable, at least until they sort out the rest of this.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:14 am
What is the point of living somewhere with no parking? It’s unnatural.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
…the idea that economic growth and the efficient allocation of resources are undesirable…
Increasing the physical flow of material and energy through the global economy actually is undesirable, by the way. There’s a gigantic Alaska sized pile of trash floating in the Pacific, fer fuck’s sake.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:19 am
There are things in this world that piss me off. If parking in Abu Dhabi was one of them, I would probably just end it by jumping off a huge parking structure.
Next you’re going to tell me that oil money is not evenly distributed among the citizens of Saudi Arabia.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:24 am
as someone who has been to abu dhabi and worked on a project there dealing with parking and traffic congestion, this is actually a good idea.
abu dhabi is an extremely auto-dependent place, yet there is not nearly enough parking to accommodate all of the cars. sure, they should be making the switch to mass-transit (plans are in the works…last year they debuted their public bus system and there are plans for a metro, like the one being constructed in dubai), but in the short-term, something needs to be done about the parking. people in abu dhabi park everywhere, even on the sidewalks. if you have ever been to south philadelphia you can get an idea of what this is like, but instead of having this situation in a residential area you have it in the CBD. on-street parking is also unpriced, creating even more of a hassle. and, if you are parking illegally, instead of getting a ticket or being towed, the authorities simply call you (they have your phone number from your registration) and ask you to move your car. its really an untenable situation, and the authorities are trying to develop more sensible policies, of which this can play a part.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Providing parking for actual residents of American cities is a good idea if you want someone living there other than Yuppies with no children. Ever tried getting two kids in strollers and your groceries onto a bus or a subway?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“I’ve never been to Abu Dhabi, but…”
…I am entirely comfortable saying which policies make sense for their people. Even though I don’t know the difference between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. And even though I have no idea what the situation is on the ground there.
Look. Some people and some cultures rely on roads and cars to get places. Some should maybe switch to public transportation. For others, that might not be such a great idea. What’s the reality in Abu Dhabi? I have no idea. But neither does MY, apparently. Before busting out the smart-ass shoes and doing your dance, it’s helpful to get some of the basic facts right.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:53 am
This rants against parking lot requirements never made sense, not for Abu Dhabi, not for Dubai and not for most parts of the Untied Staates. Its a case by case issue and Yglesias is extremly ideological biased against that type of regulation in any case. But obviously its good regulation most places since people dont start to use bikes or sth like that, they park on the streets till they are unusable. Typical externality, typical externality best deal with by regulation.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Say something nice about cars.
I dare you.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:16 am
No one should own cars except for one of Matt’s friends so he can drive out to Costco to buy steaks once a year.
The end.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Golly, zyxw, how on earth did earlier generations of city-dwellers, who had much larger families, manage to survive before private cars became commonplace?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Is it really “anti-car” and “anti-kids-in-strollers-and-groceries” to say that if people want parking, they should pay for it? Or that people who don’t want parking shouldn’t be forced to screw up their home/development/whatever to incorporate it? There’s nothing wrong with cars, so long as they aren’t subsidized.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Gee, neff, they weren’t doing it in Abu Dhabi. which is the sort of place one never, ever wants to go outside in daylight hours outside of December and January
November 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
how on earth did earlier generations of city-dwellers, who had much larger families, manage to survive before private cars became commonplace? – neff
They also managed to have those larger families often living in single room apartments, yet how many of you would be comfortable having sex in the same room as your kids once they reach a certain age?
If I had a job within NYC and my family and I restricted our shopping to the local shopping district, we could survive in our quasi-urban hellhole without a car. But it is nice to be able to go to work without having to leave on time to take a subway to catch the 7:00 AM bus to work because the next bus going to my workplace doesn’t leave until 9:00 AM and taking any other bus would involve yet another bus transfer or walking about a mile uphill over roads without sidewalks.
And it was nice when my daughter was a baby to save money by buying diapers and formula in bulk from Costco or BJs. And it is nice to be able to shop at Trader Joe’s or even the decent supermarket in the next community, which cannot really be reached by car. Nor could we readily visit my father-in-law without a car (maybe not having a car would be an advantage after all?
) … in those days in which people survived without cars, they either lived in extended families or they weren’t really able to have relationships with their families.
Yes people could survive in the city with kids and no car (and people still do). But we used to be able to survive just fine with many things that seem indispensable to us now. Do you want to survive without internet? People used to survive just fine without it … etc.
Yes, better public transport would mean that even families could probably be happy without cars. But until we have more young-kid friendly public transport, many families with young kids are going to choose to buy cars.
Or for that matter move to the ‘burbs. Yes, generations of families have raised kids just fine in the city, but when you have a choice between walking to the nearest park (even if it’s right across the street) and not being able to do household chores while you watch your kid run-around or having the kid bounce around inside your house (literally bouncing off the walls), you really start to want a backyard!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am
This practice is called payment in lieu of parking and is in place in many cities around the world already. the cities take the money and use it to build municipal parking facilities. it is a very efficient use of parking funds.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Dean … good point. My family and I pay for parking when we have a parking space we can rent. But you can’t pay for parking if there is no parking around to purchase/lease, e.g., in the apartment building in which I live the number of units is more than the number of parking spaces they have to lease.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Ever tried getting two kids in strollers and your groceries onto a bus or a subway?
Yes. You delicate little flower.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Is it really “anti-car” and “anti-kids-in-strollers-and-groceries” to say that if people want parking, they should pay for it? Or that people who don’t want parking shouldn’t be forced to screw up their home/development/whatever to incorporate it? There’s nothing wrong with cars, so long as they aren’t subsidized.
The landlords must buy the real estate for the parking but it’s the tenants who pay for it in the price of the unit. It seems to me that this is a regulation that forces tenants to pay for their own parking and is the opposite of a subsidy.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I think somebody mentioned this above, but Abu Dhabi doesn’t have a metro system yet (that would be Dubai). My family moved to Abu Dhabi a few months back and we’ve experienced the parking situation up close…its bad. Its bad to the point that homes in the city without parking run the risk of staying on the market for a long, long time, particularly high end homes where the prospective tenant is almost surely likely to possess a car. You mention that public parking fees (virtually non-existent in Abu Dhabi, as you should probably know) are scheduled to increase as more public transport becomes available…um, the whole point is that more public transport won’t be available for a while in Abu Dhabi. It may seem environmentally unsound, but creating more parking spaces in Abu Dhabi is essential.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Is it really “anti-transit” and “anti-urbanism” to say that if people want mass transit, they should pay for it? Or that people who don’t want transit shouldn’t be forced to screw up their home/development/whatever to incorporate it? There’s nothing wrong with public transportation, so long as it isn’t subsidized.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Golly, zyxw, how on earth did earlier generations of city-dwellers, who had much larger families, manage to survive before private cars became commonplace?
More crowding. More noise. More time spent getting around, running errands, buying food, etc. Less comfort. Less privacy. More stress. Lower standard of living. Lower quality of life.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“Is it really “anti-transit” and “anti-urbanism” to say that if people want mass transit, they should pay for it? Or that people who don’t want transit shouldn’t be forced to screw up their home/development/whatever to incorporate it? There’s nothing wrong with public transportation, so long as it isn’t subsidized.”
So, we’re not supposed to subsidize public transportation? Then I guess we should stop funding the interstate highway system, right, or at least not devote any non-gas-tax money to it, since it’s undoubtedly a transportation network used by the public. What your tiny brain can’t seem to understand is that transportation is always subsidized. We need to decide what kind of transportation we want, and then subsidize it. For the last 60 years this country has chosen auto transport. Some people think we should choose something else. But don’t pretend that our highway spending isn’t a subsidy of public transportation.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
This. Failing to provide tenants with parking won’t magically make their cars go away and provide them with public transport. Instead they’ll park their cars wherever there’s space, legal or not, and create a gigantic mess. Requiring landlords to provide parking pushes the cost back onto users instead of onto the public. Setting the fine at approximately the price needed to provide a parking space at public expense is a very reasonable solution.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
So, we’re not supposed to subsidize public transportation? Then I guess we should … not devote any non-gas-tax money to … the interstate highway system
Restricting road funding to revenues from gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, tolls and other user fees is fine by me. First, of course, we should stop diverting gas tax revenues to mass transit. Transit users are getting a free ride from drivers, and that should stop. Subsidies to mass transit users are vastly higher than subsidies to drivers. If we eliminated all subsidies, the cost of driving would increase slightly, and the cost of using mass transit would increase dramatically.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
We need to decide what kind of transportation we want, and then subsidize it.
We have decided. We overwhelmingly want cars and planes. We don’t want much mass transit. That’s why there’s so little of it. If transit tickets weren’t so highly subsidized, there’d be even less.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
[...] will be owned and that said cars will be driven more- seem doubtful. Matt Yglesias also provides his take on the issue: Policy rationales for a regulatory parking mandate might include a belief that the poor should [...]
November 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Matt,
I wake up every morning and drive to my office in downtown Abu Dhabi and yours is one of the first sites I go to online (and it will continue to be). But, you don’t have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. And you should post an update admitting that fact.
I lived in DC for 5 years before coming here and didn’t own a car. It was great because it was possible. But, not having a car here is simply unrealistic. You’ve never been here so you wouldn’t know that. Allow me to explain.
First, AD doesn’t have a “brand new successful metro system” (that would be Dubai). We have busses which are a ridiculous proposition if one wants to be somewhere within a half hour of their desired arrival. We have taxis who strangely decided whether or not where you’re going is in line with where they feel like driving at that particular moment. I swore off taxis a month after I moved here. That’s it for public options.
Second, walking or biking the 5 miles to work in the morning are extremely dangerous propositions given that the mortality rate here for pedestrians is one of the highest in the world.
Finally, standing outside waiting for a bus or walking more than three blocks is not an option 7 months out of the year, when the average temperature is well above 90 degrees with humidity in the 80’s.
Ironically, the title of your post is exactly right. The parking is madness here. Very little space made available. Drivers here take absolutely no care for their fellow drivers and will block you in if it suits their own needs (seriously, the standard practice is to block you in and then leave a cell phone number in the window in case you need to call them to move their car).
Housing and parking are interconnected in this city and finding a flat that provides adequate parking is a prerequisite. So, the city decided to help renters (which 90% of us are given that foreigners can’t own property).
You’re a bright guy and I agree with a lot of your posts and find others thought provoking. But seriously, the 12 minutes you took to think about parking and transit issues in Abu Dhabi and then write about it about so misguidedly, would have been better spent on reminding us how dumb Mike Pence is or on Gilbert Arenas’ free-throw average.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Matt, I think the other Abu Dhabi residents have covered the need for more parking in the city. As one who has waited for over an hour for a taxi in August during Ramadan (i.e., without being able to drink water while waiting), and as one who lived in a building without reserved parking (meaning I often had to walk over a mile from where I could find parking to my apartment) I can assure you that, as of today, more parking is a necessity. It is not uncommon for apartment buildings here to have 80+ apartments and only 20-30 parking spaces. You should like these buildings on principle, as they are built up (15-20 story buildings) rather than the sprawl you like to criticize so much.
Rather than criticizing the needed step to incentivize landlords to provide a bare modicum of parking for residents, you should laud the powers that be in Abu Dhabi for the massive investment in public transportation they are making.
http://www.dot.abudhabi.ae/?sel_page=400&lang=en&id=99