How Much Would You Pay For Parking?

No city planner of repute has denied that free parking spaces will increase the number of cars in a city. For the same reason, no city planner of repute has denied that free parking spaces will increase commute time, exacerbate air pollution, raise the cost of housing, discriminate against pedestrians, and to a large degree, negate the benefits of living in a city. But, Indian cities have initiated discussion on handling the issue more realistically only in the recent past.

When the odd-even road space rationing was in effect in Delhi, cars with odd numbered licence plates were not allowed to park off street on days in which even cars with even numbered licence plates were allowed to ply on roads --- and vice versa. In Chennai, some activists, organization and private firms have proposed paying for parking through mobile applications, and this may soon be in effect. Many residents of Chennai rent out publicly owned spaces in front of their houses for parking and charge up to Rs 1,500 in a month. According to an estimate, the municipal corporation of Chennai can earn at least Rs 750 crore in a year, if it allows parking at the rate of Rs 1,500 per parking slot. The police charges offenders Rs 100, which is as much as malls charge for parking.

In Nagpur, because of a shortage of parking space, authorities have doubled the mandated parking space for new developments. Real estate developers, however, claim that this will increase the cost of housing. Even for flats in the range of 430 square feet, builders are expected to provide a one car parking slot each. Parking space requirements of shops and offices were raised too. It is undeniable that mandatory parking spaces will lower the price of parking, and increase car ownership in the society. This means that you are more likely to buy a car and pay less for parking when there are mandatory car parking requirements. But, mandatory parking spaces also raise the cost of parking. This means that everybody will end up paying for parking regardless of whether they own cars or not. In such cities, more land, resources, time and energy will be allocated to parking. But, this cost will be spread among everybody, including people who would probably never own a car.

When authorities wanted people to pay for parking in Khan Market, Khan Market Traders' Association (KMTA) claimed that the “eminentoes” of Delhi frequently visit the market and that they should not be forced to pay for parking. But, if they are not forced to pay for parking, people who do not park their cars in Khan Market will be forced to pay for parking. It is always fair to charge people proportionately to usage.

In small residential developments, it is possible that many households do not own a car. When there are mandatory parking requirements, as builders claim, housing will become more expensive. More importantly, cars are low occupancy vehicles. Often, one or two people travel in a car while a bus can carry as many as 65 people. As a car occupies almost as much as space a half as that of a bus, the government should not encourage car usage. This does not mean that the government should encourage bus ownership or that the government should encourage bicycle ownership. All this means is that buses and bicycles occupy less space proportionate to the number of people they carry. Yet, Indian cities do not have lanes for cycling or enough spaces to park bicycles. If parking costs as much as it should, few would use low occupancy vehicles.

The truth is that the cost of parking exceeds all the other costs associated with owning a car, like fuel and maintenance. Many car owners decide not to drive, or drive very carefully because fuel and maintenance are costly. Parking is costly too, and car owners would know it only if they pay for it. Economist Donald Shoup estimates that if car ownership in India, China and other countries rise to the level of United States, the parking space that is required would be greater than the size of England. In fact, in many cities, the space occupied by parking spaces exceed any form of real estate consumption, including housing. The Centre for Science and Environment estimates that the space needed to park cars in Delhi would exceed the size of Dwarka, Asia's largest residential suburb.

Even if the government or private organizations charge for parking, as long as there are free parking spaces, this would not really solve the problem. This is because when something is free, institutions that charge parking will not be able to compete with institutions that provide it for free. So, this will inevitable lower the price of parking, and does not go very far in solving associated problems of road space usage, pollution, congestion, and housing costs. Similarly, mandatory parking requirement lowers the wage of employees, and few notice this partly because they do not know how expensive parking lots are. The goods in malls and food in restaurants will be less expensive if parking spaces were not free.

But, doubling the mandatory spaces for parking in residential developments or office spaces will not solve the problem of off-street parking. For example, if offices and malls have more space for parking, people are more likely to use a free resource: road space. This is why charging for parking cannot be separated from other issues like charging for roads.

Moreover, in dense Indian cities, by allowing free parking, the government will be encouraging more people to live in faraway suburbs. This is, again, a problem that cannot be resolved by charging for parking alone. A higher floor area ratio would be necessary. But, there is no reason, why the government should encourage suburbanization in cities which are polluted, overcrowded and dense.