Here’s a chart passed along to me by a reader, from one of the many long but interesting (FTA) Transit Cooperative Research Program reports.
This comes from a chapter on parking pricing, filled with case studies about how the hidden costs of parking rarely get passed on to the end user. Changing that relationship is difficult!
Here’s the description of transit alternatives:
The degree to which parking pricing will be effective in trip reduction also depends upon the traveler’s perception of the comparability and quality of available travel alternatives. If transit service is to be an effective substitute for driving, it must be direct enough and frequent enough to offer convenient access and competitive travel time, as well as being attractively priced. The same holds true for carpooling and vanpooling, where incentives in parking priority or preferential lanes or access can help offset inherent limitations in flexibility and travel time compared to driving alone. Employer subsidization of transit fares, carpool and vanpool parking, or other financial incentives can help balance the scales in making non-drive-alone modes competitive.
I’ve long thought that parking is the one tool that cities unequivocally control, and that cities should use parking policy as more a lever to create change. This chart seems to confirm that it can have a big impact.
On the other hand, discussions about this can really bring out the mouth breathers. If people have spent their whole lives getting something for free, it’s really hard to ask them to pay for it.
Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.