POINT OF VIEW


W Parking, Consultants and,


Sigh, The New York Times BY JOHN VAN HORN


OW, “PARKING” SEEMS to be on everyone’s lips. Our little backstreet industry that affects just about every person on the planet suddenly has


become the rage. It started with the leasing of the city of Chicago’s on-street


parking operation. Then cities such as Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, LosAngeles and others saw dollar signs. San Francisco began a much ballyhooed (in the Bay area) new parking program, called SFpark, that parallels Professor Don Shoup’s model for munici- pal parking operations.The story was picked up by a few papers, and found its way onto Page 27 under the obits. Then it happened.The venerable NewYorkTimes ran a busi-


ness-section commentary by a GeorgeMason University econo- mist, Tyler Cowen, and all hell broke loose. Many in the media claim that The Times sets the tone for what gets published other places. (I do know that when PT’s Blog was mentioned in the “Old Gray Lady,” our hits went from 300 to 1,500 daily for a few days.) Well, it worked. Suddenly, the media and the


Which brings me to another subject, near to my heart: Park-


ing consultants and their general suspicion and sometimes out- right derision ofDon Shoup.Many tellme that he is an academic and has no business trying to shove his theories on the realworld. I mean, after all, what the heck does he know about real parking problems? He spends his time in his office on a university cam- pus, publishing so hewon’t perish,while the rest of us have to get out there every day and dealwith politicians, city planners, finan- cial disasters, and those pesky parkers. When I talk to my friends in the consulting business, I find


blogosphere were inundated with stories about parking, Shoup, San Francisco and Cowen. It didn’t stop there.ACato Institute blogger (Senior Fellow Randal O’Toole) took umbrage with both Cowen and Shoup. Lines were drawn in the sand. UCLA’s Shoup told me that he normally didn’t answer blog


Another subject: parking consultants and their general suspicion and sometimes outright derision of Don Shoup.


postings, but since Cato and O’Toole were so well-known and - respected, he felt it incumbent on himto do so.And he did. Shoup picked up the gauntlet with a 5,000-word broadside sent to O’Toole, and copied to practically everyone. Parking had gone viral. Everything is linked online to everything else. Shoup’s mis-


sive alone has more than a dozen links to back up documenta- tion, videos and excerpts from his book that started it all: “The High Cost of Free Parking.” Economist Cowen and Cato’s O’Toole also link to other references.As SherlockHolmeswould say, “The game is afoot.” I felt that this offered a great opportunity to get some of the


issues concerning the “Shoup model” out in the open and then hear from the originator himself. In this issue of PT, we explore the new parking project in San Francisco, pro and con, and offer many opportunities for you to go online and research for your- self. Shoup, Cowen and O’Toole’s writings can be found in our blog (see sidebar page 14).


*** 6 OCTOBER 2010 • PARKING TODAY • www.parkingtoday.com


that many have not read Shoup’s book; and those who have usu- ally grab onto something and don’t seem able to let go. Case in point: “It simply won’t work. Imagine turning the money gener- ated by parking back into the neighborhoodswhere it came from. Thatmoney has been dedicated to education, and that’swhere it’s going. No one is ever going to change that, not in this town.” I can sympathize with many of the consultants.Most of the conversation going on in the main stream media over the past couple of months has been between economists, pundits (like me) and common blog- gers who couldn’t find a parking space if it appeared in front of their car. The parking professionals who make their living every day having to deal with the vagaries of municipal politics, real-world meetings with businesses, angry citizens, and civic planners with agendas find Shoup’s media persona a little hard to swallow.


On the other hand, Shoup can say what he wants with


impunity. No one is going to fire him, or not give him the next contract.There is little downside to what he says or does.And he can bring the weight of academia to his presentations. If it does- n’t work, no big deal. He just goes to his next lecture and adjusts a few notes. There is one upside to all this: Everyone is talking about


parking. People are taking sides. Discussions are going on. Changes are being made.Are they 100%Shoup? Of course not. But tired old ideas are being rethought. It’s a slowprocess, but it’s beginning to happen. The parking manager who has been pleading for rate


increases to help solve parking issues is getting his day in court. Emerging technology that will provide data necessary in rate set- ting is being installed. Garage owners are finding, bit by bit, that they are no longer in competition with low-cost or “free” spaces on the street. And this is themost exciting part:Acity councilman ormay-


or who hasn’t thought about parking other than to keep its prices lowis nowrethinking that position.After all, I read it in The New York Times. There must be something about this parking thing I should consider.


Continued on Page 8


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56