Just days after I defended her, Joan Venocchi penned a bizarre op-ed yesterday calling for some sort of solution to high parking prices in the city:
How about some outrage over the excessive cost of off-street parking and how it contributes to the city’s parking problems?
According to a 1997/1998 parking inventory done by the city, Boston has 134,000 off-street parking spaces.
Most daily commuters have no choice but to park their vehicles in overpriced private garages and lots. One big downtown office tower charges about $400 a month. The more occasional commuter who drives into the city to shop, eat, or keep a business appointment, does not have a reserved space and has no desire to spend $22 or more to park….
It is true that too many people drive cars into the city, rather than take public transportation. But no matter how they get here, the city needs them here to work and play.
This is economic reality: Suburbanites are not going to take a train or a bus to eat or shop in Boston. They can shop much more conveniently at suburban malls. And, increasingly, they can patronize local restaurants that offer free parking and ever-greater variety and quality. Adding a huge parking fee onto a night out at a Boston restaurant or the cost of an outfit or haircut is great incentive to do business closer to home.
I’m no Tyler Cowen in devotion to markets, but why does Venocchi think off-street parking is “overpriced”? Yes, 22 bucks is steep, but there are a lot of people who want to drive in the city and park in the city. Lots of people live in the city, and the neighborhoods in question (Downtown, Back Bay, South End) are the ones the highest density of people and retail. The market mechanism is probably the best way of sorting out who gets to drive and park when and where.
When you have too many people chasing too few a commodity (parking spaces), the price will go up. You can build more parking garages, but I think there are good reasons to restrain construction of them. In any case, try getting those Back Bay and South End neighborhood associations to approve a huge honking garage next to someone’s brownstone. And absent major addition of spaces in these business-congested areas, you’re simply asking garages to charge below-market rates, which won’t make it easier to find a space, just that garages will fill up sooner.
It’s unclear exactly what Venocchi is proposing as a solution. But say you do somehow make parking easier and cheaper. More people will drive, perhaps to the point the new savings or ease of parking are erased. After all, when people decide to drive or take transit (for those who have the choice), they weigh the hassle of one over the other. It may be “economic reality” that suburbanites won’t take public transportation, but it’s also economic reality that you won’t induce more people to take public transit if you increase the incentives for driving.
We are not New York, and people love their cars here. But we’re densely populated enough that people can’t expect that it’s their god-given right to drive into the city, and find an easy and cheap parking space. That mentality — not “price-gouging” is the problem.
No comments have been added to this post yet.