All Opinion pieces and Letters to the Editor reflect ONLY the thoughts of the writer, and not those of the Stratford Crier or its Editorial Board.
“Talking Transportation”
By Jim Cameron
President
CAMERON COMMUNICATIONS INC
Author: “Off The Record: Confessions of a Media Consultant”
As the housing debate rages statewide, one of the issues seldom addressed is that of “free parking”.
It’s one thing to increase housing density to hopefully bring us more affordable domiciles, but we have to remember that parking must be part of the equation… properly managed and priced.
Critics argue that each parking space in a new development takes up about 325 sq feet. That means 2 or 3 spaces could require as much land as a studio apartment or small store. And the cost of parking just adds to construction costs: as much as $10,000 per space on a surface lot, $50,000 on a parking structure and $100,000 in an underground lot.
Consider Bridgeport where as many as 200 homeless are living on the streets. To encourage more housing development, in 2022 the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission eliminated minimum on-site parking for new developments. That has many fearing street battles over limited curbside parking if empty lots turn into multi-family apartments without built-in, on-site parking.
On one site on East Main Street a NYC-based developer wants to construct 74 apartments (and street-level retail space) in a five story building with no parking. On average that would mean 60 – 80 new cars in the neighborhood.
Of course, if developments were to be located near existing public transportation, residents wouldn’t need as many cars to get to school, work and shopping. But that’s a siting and transit funding issue.
Donald Shoup of UCLA (who died recently at age 86) published that in Los Angeles including parking in housing construction increased apartment rents by $200–$500 per month due to added construction and financing costs.
As he wrote in his seminal book, The High Cost of Free Parking (2005), free parking is never really free. Building more parking, like widening highways, just encourages more use of cars, adding to the problem.
In downtown Hartford it’s estimated that 22% of land is dedicated to parking. And that’s just surface lots (costing drivers $100 per month), not parking structures ($200 per month) or street parking ($240 per month). Compare those costs to a monthly bus pass on CTtransit ($63) or CTRail ($267 for unlimited rides from/to New Haven).
Downtown Hartford
Downtown New Haven
Look at your own town or city. Being selfish, we all want parking right in front of our destination… as close as possible to the front door. Ever notice when you go someplace new, like a theater or event space, their websites give driving directions but seldom show mass transit options?
None of the solutions to this parking problem will be popular:
PRICE PARKING AT MARKET RATES: Let the demand (and limited supply) determine the actual cost of parking. If the lot is always full (forcing people to drive around), it’s too cheap.
CHARGE FOR PARKING AT WORK / SCHOOL: Rather than employers eating the cost, make their employee drivers pay a share. That would right-size the true cost of driving vs taking mass transit. Reward employees who don’t drive by subsidizing their transit costs, exactly like CDOT’s CTpass program does.
As I say… not popular, but worth thinking about.
Jim Cameron is founder of the Commuter Action Group and advocates for Connecticut rail riders. His weekly column “Talking Transportation” is archived here. You can contact Jim at CommuterActionGroup@gmail.com.”
Social engineering ax-grinding + lack of concern for people’s $valuable time$ can lead to such skewed cost-benefit analyses.
Getting freedom-loving Americans out of cars & onto bicycles (@ e-bikes, or conventional), &/or pedestrian sidewalks, while applauded by Communist / Totalitarian countries, actually results in the socio-economic manipulation of gullible compliers / virtue-signalers (who may maintain no economically viable options).