Should commuter parking at train stations be free?

Key Takeaways

• Donald Shoup’s three principles (demand-based pricing, returning revenue to the district and removing minimum parking requirements) for replacing ‘free parking’ can be applied to commuter car parks.
• Applying these principles would improve public transport mode share and reduce congestion.
• Unintended consequences such as overspill on neighbouring roads and financial distributional impacts can be managed.
• San Francisco’s BART system proves that it is possible.
• A lack of awareness and political risk are probably why Shoup’s principles are not generally applied to commuter car parking. Both of these can be relatively easily resolved.

Next Steps for Transport Leaders

How can your jurisdiction move commuter car parking towards using Shoup’s principles?

Introduction

This blog was inspired by the recent death of Donald Shoup, the author of The Cost of Free Parking, who changed how the world thinks about parking.

In his book, Donald had three principles:

1. Demand-based pricing.
2. Returning revenue to the district.
3. Remove minimum parking requirements.

A topic that has been rattling around in the back of my mind for years is how to reform free or very cheap commuter car parking. The arguments for commuter car parking are straightforward:

• We want to encourage people to use public transport. Many people will want to drive to their local station, and so we should provide free (or very cheap) parking so they can continue their journey on public transport.
• Free commuter car parking is very popular with the travelling public.
• When car parks are regularly full (and many are, given that they are free), the travelling public requests larger car parks, and politicians are happy to provide them, often making commitments around election time.

However, there are significant downsides of free (or very cheap) commuter car parking:

• The provision of car parking is costly, often requiring the construction of multi-storey car parks and taking money away from the capital and operations of the core transport system.
• The land may be better used for other purposes, such as housing.
• People driving to the station add to local congestion.
• Providing free or heavily discounted parking makes public transport services to and from the station more expensive to provide, as they are not used as much.
• People often have to get to the car park very early to get a space.
• People who would use public transport if they knew they could get a space do not, reducing their use of public transport.

Improving Commuter Parking

In an ideal world, people would access the station by active or public transport, and there would be no need for commuter parking provision. However, we do not live in an ideal world, but can we do better with commuter parking?

To begin with, let’s be clear about our objectives:

1. Increase the mode share of public transport.
2. Reduce congestion.

Of course, these deliver various benefits, including environmental, health and quality of life benefits.

To consider the issues, I think it is worth splitting the users of commuter car parks into several categories based on their distance from the station:

Ideally, we do not want people in the first two categories (locals and semi-locals) to drive to the station, freeing up capacity in the car park for people in the third and fourth (outsiders and amenity hunters) categories. Using Donald Shoup’s principles, is there a way of getting to that position?

Principle 1 - Demand-Based Pricing

Let’s start with demand-based pricing. In Donald Shoup’s model, he proposed setting a price to ensure the vacancy level was around 85%, ensuring that space was always available for people who wanted it, such as our fourth category of people (amenity hunters) who wish to access local amenities. Of course, this may not be an issue if there are no local amenities. However, this suggests a broader land use planning problem that needs to be resolved.

This pricing should sufficiently discriminate between our different categories of users. People who can use active transport will be encouraged to do so to save money. Similarly, people who can access public transport may also face the same incentives (assuming that parking is more expensive than catching public transport), leaving parking for people who live further away and those who wish to access local amenities.

Some may argue that people who live further away will not want to pay for their parking and will now drive for the whole trip, undermining public transport use. However, many of these people cannot access the car park and will not currently be using public transport anyway. They will now have the option of parking and using public transport.

In short, principle 1 works well for achieving our objectives.

Principle 2 - Returning Revenue to the District

Now, let’s move on to principle 2 - Returning Revenue to the District.

The parking charges could now deliver significant revenues that can be spent on:

• More local bus services and better facilities, e.g. bus stops.
• Better active transport, such as footpaths, cycle lanes and cycle parking.

Both of these factors help us meet our objectives.

Principle 3 - Remove Minimum Parking Requirements

Let’s move on to principle 3 - remove minimum parking requirements.

This principle was focused on the requirements around land uses. There is no direct equivalent for commuter car parking. However, there is a key underlying point here. The minimum parking requirements were based on the peak parking demand and the need to meet it. It is not difficult to see how meeting peak commuter car parking is an equivalent idea.

The underlying question is what provision for commuter car parking we should make. Donald Shoup would say we should abandon the idea of meeting demand when the cost is free. As he points out, economists do not think this way. They seek to understand demand at a given price. We do not supply bread based on its being free.

We can certainly manage the parking demand through the pricing mechanism. However, when deciding on car parking, how much should we provide? In this case, the context of the station will matter.

For example, a station at the end of the line with no other good options could draw passengers from a wide catchment, in which case the level of provision may need to be relatively high. However, other stations may have much smaller catchments, to the point where it does not make sense to provide any parking at all. For a station with an existing car park in this category, closing the car park and using the land more productively may make sense.

In short, all three principles of Donald Shoup’s work can be applied to commuter car parks. However, other considerations need to be included.

Other Considerations

People who try to park elsewhere to avoid the car park charge. One issue that needs to be addressed is people who try to avoid parking in now paid-for commuter car parks by parking in either free local spaces or other free car parks, such as those further down the line. Many jurisdictions address this by charging for curbside parking (potentially based on Shoup’s principles) while providing residents and visitors with permits to avoid inconveniencing residents. Again, these revenues can be used to improve local transport options. For car parks at other stations, the conversion of several car parks to demand pricing may need to occur simultaneously.

One concern will be the impact on people with low incomes. How can they afford the cost of the parking? For people who live relatively close to the station, they have the option of not parking. For people who can only access the station by driving, concessions on the price of parking could be made.

San Francisco’s Demand-Based System

Is this unrealistic and all pie in the sky? No, San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has had a demand-based system for over a decade. There is even an academic evaluation of how it has performed:

• Increased public transport mode share.
• More people are sharing their cars than just driving alone.
• Reduced average commute times.
• Reduced overall vehicle miles travelled.

Implementing more broadly

So, given this is a proven approach to parking with significant benefits, why is it not used in more jurisdictions?

I suspect there are two significant factors:

1. A lack of awareness of what San Francisco has done and/or the benefits it brings.
2. Concerns around political opposition by decision-makers.

The first factor is one of the reasons I am writing this blog. For the second factor, several tactics can be deployed to reduce political opposition. These include:

• An incremental approach. Rather than a big bang of moving to dynamic pricing, it may make sense to introduce the concept of charging for parking by introducing a minimal fee to begin with, which can be steadily increased until the 85% occupancy figure is achieved.
• A respected talking head. Undertaking an independent review of commuter parking by a highly revered person who can act as a spokesperson and help the public understand the changes.
• Upfront Improvements. Deliver the improved active transport and bus services upfront.
• Be clear about the benefits and communicate them relentlessly. A clear message about why the changes are necessary will be the key to success.
• Run a pilot. Beginning in a few locations (to avoid spillovers) with lower political risk can enable the change process to be trialled in a relatively safe environment, improving the process for other locations.
• Transparency. Being transparent about revenue usage allows people to see how their local transport is benefitting.

Conclusion

Donald Shoup's principles offer a proven framework for reforming commuter parking. By implementing demand-based pricing, reinvesting revenue locally, and rethinking parking provision, transport agencies can reduce congestion, increase ridership, and create more livable communities around their stations. The success of BART's program shows this isn't just theoretical - it's a practical solution waiting to be implemented.

While the political challenges are real, they are not insurmountable. With careful planning, clear communication, and a phased approach, we can move beyond the era of free parking and create a more sustainable and efficient transport system for all users. The question should no longer be whether we should reform commuter parking but when we will do it.

If you wish to discuss this in more detail, please contact me at russell@transportlc.org​

If you liked this blog, please share with other people.

Subscribe to the Transport Leader Blog

The Transport Leader Newsletter

If you like this blog, you may also like the Transport Leaders newsletter.

⌛️ Save time

🗞 Stay informed

💐Grow as a leader

Subscribe to the Transport Leader newsletter